STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

Transcription

1 STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION December 3, 2009 STAFF REPORT USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO VERIZON WIRELESS - FAITH RANCH REQUEST: TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY WITH A 100-FOOT TALL MONOPOLE AND EQUIPMENT SHELTER IN THE A-2-40 (GENERAL AGRICULTURE) ZONE ON A 160-ACRE PARCEL. THE FACILITY S LEASE AREA IS 1,156 SQUARE FEET. THE SITE IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RIVER ROAD, SOUTH SIDE OF ORCHARD ROAD, AT 3106 RIVER ROAD, IN THE VERNALIS AREA. APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant: Alan Heine for Verizon Wireless Property Owner: Mary T. Morris Ranch, Ltd. Engineer: HMH Design - Waterfront Engineering Location: The site is located on the east side of River Road, south side of Orchard Road, at 3106 River Road, in the Vernalis area Section, Township, Range: 31/ Supervisorial District: Five (Supervisor DeMartini) Assessor s Parcel: Referrals: See Exhibit G Environmental Review Referrals Area of Parcel: 160 acres Water Supply: Private well Sewage Disposal: Septic tank/leach field system Existing Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture) General Plan Designation: Agriculture Williamson Act: Environmental Review: Negative Declaration Present Land Use: Almond orchard, alfalfa, two single-family residential dwellings and a barn Surrounding Land Use: Agricultural parcels: to the south, tomato fields; to the east, oat and corn fields; to the north, tomato and almond orchards, to include a single-family dwelling; and to the west alfalfa fields 1

2 UP Staff Report December 3, 2009 Page 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION This is a request to construct a wireless communication facility with a 100-foot monopole and equipment shelter in the A-2-40 (General Agriculture) zoning district on a 160-acre parcel. The facility s lease area is 1,156 square feet. The proposed use permit would allow for the construction of a multi-carrier wireless communications facility at the proposed site. The facility will consist of a fenced 34-foot by 34-foot area, with a 10-foot wide access gate, a 12-foot by 20-foot equipment shelter, one standby generator, and a 100-foot tall monopole type tower supporting three antenna sectors and a microwave dish. The fenced area will consist of a 6-foot tall chain link fence with barbed wire on the top. Utilities will be routed to the site via a shallow trench to existing utility connections found on Orchard Road. The site is located on the east side of River Road, south side of Orchard Road, at 3106 River Road, in the Vernalis area. SITE DESCRIPTION The 160-acre project site is in a rural area of the County, located a little over five miles north of the community of Grayson and less than three miles southeast of the community of Vernalis. The site is located a mile south of Maze Boulevard (State Route 132). The property currently has two single-family residential units and a barn located on River Road. The parcel is currently in almond and alfalfa production. A review of land uses in the immediate vicinity reveals similar agriculturallyrelated features of orchards and row crops. The nearest off-site dwelling can be found on a small one and a half acre parcel north of the proposed site. DISCUSSION In 2006, the State of California passed SB 1627, which made many changes to wireless communication facilities. This law went into effect in 2007, and some of the new rules require wireless communication be designed for collocation (sharing of the tower with other service providers) and require environmental review. The environmental review process allows the county to require approval under a use permit. This application was referred to the appropriate agencies and departments for review. All applications for new wireless communication facilities are reviewed for compliance with Stanislaus County s Communication Facilities Ordinance and the regulations for the applicable zoning district. Communication facilities in this zoning district are classified as Tier Three uses subject to a use permit and public hearing by the Stanislaus County Planning Commission. Tier Three uses are defined as uses which are not directly related to agriculture but may be necessary to serve the A-2 zoning district or may be difficult to locate in an urban area. The following findings must be made in order to grant approval of a Tier Three use: 1. The use as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict with agricultural use of other property in the vicinity; and 2. The parcel on which such use is requested is not located in one of the County s most productive agricultural areas as that term is used in the Agricultural Element of the General Plan; or the character of the use that is requested is such that the land may reasonably be returned to agricultural use in the future. 2

3 UP Staff Report December 3, 2009 Page 3 In addition, the following finding is required for approval of any Use Permit in the A-2 zoning district: The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Agriculture" and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County. Chapter of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance lays out the standards for Communication Facilities in four (4) categories: general standards, siting standards for towers, siting standards for antennas, and size limits for equipment shelters. The proposed facility meets all of these standards. Section of the Ordinance also requires that all service providers employ all reasonable measures to co-locate their antenna equipment on existing towers prior to applying for approval of new towers. The closest cell tower can be found over two miles south of this property. There are also two cell towers over four miles east of the project. The County encourages co-locations for cell tower transmitters, however the applicant has stated that the coverage for these particular cell towers is too far away to be as effective as the proposed location. The applicant is trying to fill in a coverage gap along Highway 132 in order to better serve Verizon cell phone customers. The applicant has explained that co-location is not a viable option for these other towers due to the coverage area Verizon is trying to encompass. (See Exhibit B - Applicant s Submittal) The predominate agricultural use of the property has been an almond orchard and an alfalfa field. The use of the site has a minimal effect to agricultural production, in that a small portion of land is being taken out of production. Therefore, staff believes the findings can be made because a cell tower on the site would not conflict with the agricultural uses on the property or in the vicinity of the project, and the use is such that the land may reasonably be returned to agriculture in the future. Communication facilities are a necessary part of the modern physical environment. The applicant has designed the cell tower to comply with County standards for communication facilities. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the proposed project was circulated to various agencies. Based on the Initial Study prepared for this project, adoption of a Negative Declaration is being proposed. The Initial Study and comments to the Initial Study have not presented any substantial information to identify a potential significant impact needing to be mitigated. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above report and the entire project record, staff recommends the Planning Commission: 1. Adopt the Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(b), by finding that on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Study and any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration reflects Stanislaus County s independent judgement and analysis. 3

4 UP Staff Report December 3, 2009 Page 4 2. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorders Office pursuant to Public Resources Code Section and CEQA Guidelines Section Find that: a. The use as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict with agricultural use of other property in the vicinity; b. The parcel on which such use is requested is not located in one of the County s most productive agricultural areas as that term is used in the Agricultural Element of the General Plan; or the character of the use that is requested is such that the land may reasonably be returned to agricultural use in the future; and c. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Agriculture" and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County. 4. Approve Use Permit Application No Verizon Wireless - Faith Ranch, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. ***** Note: Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, all project applicants subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each project. Therefore, the applicant will further be required to pay $2, for the Department of Fish and Game and the Clerk Recorder filing fees. The attached Conditions of Approval ensure that this will occur. Report written by: Sean D. Purciel, Associate Planner, November 12, 2009 Reviewed by: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner Attachments: Exhibit A - Maps and Elevations Exhibit B - Applicant s Submittal Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval Exhibit D - Initial Study Exhibit E - Negative Declaration Exhibit F - Environmental Review Responses Exhibit G - Environmental Review Referrals (I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP Verizon - Faith Ranch\Staff Report - Faith Ranch Cell Tower.wpd) 4

5 UP Verizon - Faith Ranch VICINITY MAP SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Vicinity Map SITE MAZE BOULEVARD (STATE ROUTE 132) RIVER RD DAIRY RD PELICAN RD E BLEWETT RD CENTER RD ORCHARD RD ôó 33 OAKLEA RD 5

6 6 UP Verizon - Faith Ranch AREA MAP/ACREAGE E BLEWETT RD TIEDEMAN RD ORCHARD RD Acreage RIVER RD CENTER RD Site DAIRY RD PELICAN RD SAN JOAQUIN RIVER OAKLEA RD

7 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER GP/Zoning RIVER RD PELICAN RD DAIRY RD CENTER RD OAKLEA RD UP Verizon - Faith Ranch GP/ZONING Site A-2-40 AGRICULTURE E BLEWETT RD ORCHARD RD TIEDEMAN RD 7

8 SAN JOAQUIN RIVER PELICAN RD DAIRY RD CENTER RD Aerial RIVER RD Photo Site UP Verizon - Faith Ranch AERIAL PHOTO OAKLEA RD ORCHARD RD E BLEWETT RD TIEDEMAN RD 8

9 9

10 10

11 11

12 12

13 13

14 14

15 15

16 16

17 17

18 18

19 DRAFT NOTE: Approval of this application is valid only if the following conditions are met. This permit shall expire unless activated within 18 months of the date of approval. In order to activate the permit, it must be signed by the applicant and one of the following actions must occur: (a) a valid building permit must be obtained to construct the necessary structures and appurtenances; or, (b) the property must be used for the purpose for which the permit is granted. (Stanislaus County Ordinance ) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO VERIZON WIRELESS - FAITH RANCH Department of Planning and Community Development 1. This use shall be conducted as described in the application and supporting information (including the plot plan) as approved by the Planning Commission. 2. The applicant is required to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County, it s officers and employees from any claim, action, or proceedings against the County to set aside the approval of the project, which is brought within the applicable statute of limitations. The County shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding to set aside the approval and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 3. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the US Army Corps of Engineers to determine if any "wetlands," "waters of the United States," or other areas under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate permits or authorizations from the Corps, including all necessary water quality certifications, if necessary. 4. Pursuant to Section 1600 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, prior to construction, the Developer shall be responsible for contacting the California Department of Fish and Game and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate streambed alteration agreements, permits or authorizations, if necessary. 5. Pursuant to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, prior to construction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game to determine if any special status plant or animal species are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate permits or authorizations from these agencies, if necessary. 6. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall record a Notice of Administrative Conditions and Restrictions with the County Recorder s Office within 30 days of project approval. The Notice includes: Conditions of Approval/Development Standards and Schedule; any adopted Mitigation Measures; and a project area map. 19

20 UP Conditions of Approval December 3, 2009 Page 2 DRAFT 7. Pursuant to Section of the California Fish and Game Code (effective January 1, 2009), the applicant is required to pay a Department of Fish and Game filing fee at the time of recording a Notice of Determination. Within five (5) days of approval of this project by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall submit to the Department of Planning and Community Development a check for $2,050.00, made payable to Stanislaus County, for the payment of Fish and Game and Clerk Recorder filing fees. Pursuant to Section (e)(3) of the California Fish and Game Code, no project shall be operative, vested, or final, nor shall local government permits for the project be valid, until the filing fees required pursuant to this section are paid. 8. With approval of this Use Permit, the applicants and cell tower operators will not be required to obtain a staff approval for future co-location activities. Building permits will be required for future proposals and future antenna. 9. All outside storage and mechanical equipment shall be screened from the view of any public right-of-way by fencing of uniform construction. Building Permits Division 10. Building Permits are required for the proposal. The proposed development must comply with current adopted California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24. Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau 11. The project shall comply with the current California Fire Code requirements. All buildings constructed shall comply with on-site water for fire protection. An approved fire apparatus access road shall be provided. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved turn-around California Fire Code Section 503. West Stanislaus Fire Protection District 12. All locked areas shall be provided with Fire Department Standard Access Key System (Knox Boxes). Department of Environmental Resources 13. Applicant shall determine, to the satisfaction of the Department of Environmental Resources (DER), that a site containing (or formerly containing) residences or farm buildings, or structures, has been fully investigated (via Phase 1 study and Phase II study if necessary) prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Any discovery of underground storage tanks, former underground storage tank locations, buried chemicals, buried refuse, or contaminated soil shall be brought to the immediate attention of DER. 20

21 UP DRAFT Conditions of Approval December 3, 2009 Page Applicant should contact the Department of Environmental Resources regarding appropriate permitting requirements for hazardous materials and/or wastes. Applicant and/or occupants handling hazardous materials or generating hazardous wastes must notify the Department of Environmental Resources relative to: (Calif. H&S, Division 20). A. Permits for the underground storage of hazardous substances at a new location or the modification of existing tank facilities. B. Requirements for registering as a handler of hazardous materials in the County. C. Submittal of hazardous materials Business Plans by handlers of materials in excess of 55 gallons or 500 pounds of a hazardous material or of 200 cubic feet of compressed gas. D. The handling of acutely hazardous materials may require the preparation of a Risk Management Prevention Program, which must be implemented prior to operation of the facility. The list of acutely hazardous materials can be found in SARA, Title III, Section 302. E. Generators of hazardous waste must notify the Department of Environmental Resources relative to the: (1) quantities of waste generated; (2) plans for reducing waste generated; and (3) proposed waste disposal practices. F. Permits for the treatment of hazardous waste on-site will be required from the Hazardous Materials Division. G. Medical waste generators must complete and submit a questionnaire to the Department of Environmental Resources for determination if they are regulated under the medical Waste Management Act. Department of Public Works 15. No parking, loading or unloading of vehicles shall be permitted within the right of way of River Road. 16. The driveway approach shall be paved per Stanislaus County Standards (Plate 3-f6). 17. An Encroachment permit shall be taken out for the driveway approach on the property. 18. If a new driveway is installed for this project, Public Works shall approve the location of the driveway prior to installation. ***** Please note: If Conditions of Approval/Development Standards are amended by the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, such amendments will be noted in the upper right hand corner of the Conditions of Approval/Development Standards, new wording is in bold, and deleted wording will have a line through it. I:\Staffrpt\UP\2009\UP Verizon - Faith Ranch\Staff Report - Faith Ranch Cell Tower.wpd 21

22 Stanislaus County Planning and Community Development th Street, Suite 3400 Phone: (209) Modesto, California Fax: (209) CEQA INITIAL STUDY Adapted from CEQA Guidelines APPENDI G Environmental Checklist Form, Final Text, October 26, Project title: Use Permit Application No Verizon Wireless - Faith Ranch 2. Lead agency name and address: Stanislaus County th Street, Suite 3400 Modesto, CA Contact person and phone number: Sean Purciel, Associate Planner (209) Project location: The site is located on the east side of River Road, north side of Center Road, at 3106 River Road, in the Vernalis area. APN: Project sponsor s name and address: Alan Heine Verizon Wireless 4305 Hensley Circle El Dorado Hills, CA General Plan designation: Agriculture 7. Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture) 8. Description of project: This is a request to build a wireless communication facility (cell tower monopole) to include a 100 foot high monopole tower and a 240 square foot shelter and generator within a 1,156 square foot fenced compound on the western portion of a 160± acre parcel containing a large orchard and alfalfa. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Large agricultural parcels (including orchards to the north) and row crops surround the property. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.): Stanislaus County Department of Public Works Department of Environmental Resources 22

23 23

24 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except No answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A No answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A No answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. Potentially is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more Potentially entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) Negative Declaration: With Mitigation Incorporated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially to a. The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section VII, Earlier Analyses, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are Less than with Mitigation Measures Incorporated, describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significant criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 24

25 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 4 ISSUES I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion: The 160± acre site is currently in agricultural uses, notably almond and alfalfa production. Structures currently on the property consist of two single-family residential units and a barn. There are no significant trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings in the vicinity of the site. The site is in a rural area of the County, located a little over five miles north of the community of Grayson and less than three miles south of the community of Vernalis. The project and vicinity of the project are not identified as scenic vistas in the Stanislaus County General Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element. There are no eligible or designated State scenic highways in the area, according to the Stanislaus County General Plan. Interstate 5 is the only officially designated State Scenic Highway in Stanislaus County. The site is surrounded by rural large agricultural parcels, some with single-family dwellings. The proposed cell tower would not urbanize this area and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. The proposed project would not create a new source of light. Existing buildings are the only light source in the area. Therefore, the emission of light and glare would be considered less than significant. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Land Use and Circulation Element, Stanislaus County Code Title Zoning Ordinance. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 25

26 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 5 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion: The site is enrolled under Williamson Act Contract No Correspondence from the Department of Conservation has not been received at this time. Per similar cell tower applications in the Agriculture zone, the DOC has stated that proposed towers are deemed a compatible use due to the small size of the footprint and will not harm or detract from the agricultural use of the property. This project will not conflict with any bonafide agricultural activities in the area and/or lands enrolled under the Williamson Act. The proposed parcels will be restricted by the General Agriculture (A-2) zoning district and AB To characterize the agricultural resources for the vicinity, the Important Farmland Maps produced by the Department of Conservation s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) for Stanislaus County were reviewed. The farmland map category for the site as defined by the Department of Conservation s FMMP is Prime farmland. The proposed project would not convert important farm resources to urban uses. The site is located outside the limits of an incorporated city. It is designated as Agriculture in the Stanislaus County General Plan, Land Use Element. The proposed project will be consistent with the County General Plan with approval of this permit. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Land Use & Agricultural Elements, Farmland Mapping Layer, California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - Stanislaus County Farmland , III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion: According to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD), the San Joaquin Valley, which includes Stanislaus County, air quality has been designated as non-attainment by the Environmental Protection Agency and by the Air Resources Board for PM-10 and PM 2.5 (fine particulate matter and dust). Additionally, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB) is currently in non-attainment for both the Federal and State designation for one-hour ozone (O3) and is classified as extreme. The District maintains permit authority over stationary sources of pollutants. The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act require areas that are designated non-attainment to reduce emissions until standards are met. Correspondence from the SJVAPCD has not been received at this time. Therefore, we can consider that the proposed project will have less than significant impacts with the implementation of their rules and regulations, which will be conditioned into the project s design. 26

27 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 6 The cell tower will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The site does contain a backup generator. The air emissions associated with the proposal will not exceed the thresholds set by the SJVAPCD. The applicant should be aware of the District s Rules and Implementation Plans to reduce airborne particulates, such as PM-10 and NOx during construction. A Condition of approval will be imposed on the project stating that the applicant shall comply with rules and regulations adopted by the SJVAPCD. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District - Regulation VIII Fugitive Dust/PM-10 Synopsis, Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality s (GAMAQI), Rule 9510 Indirect Source Review (ISR) (Adopted December 15, 2005), IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion: The parcel is designated as Agriculture and has existing orchards and alfalfa crops on the property. Currently, dwellings and large buildings are not proposed under this project. A cell tower will not convert agricultural or sensitive habitat to an urbanized uses. The proposed project would have minimal impacts to sensitive species. After a review of the County General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, the site is not located within a biologically sensitive area. No vernal pools, sensitive and endangered species or wetland habitats were found. Staff believes the proposed project will have minimal impacts in regards to sensitive and endangered species, conservation plans, wildlife and vegetation habitat, and significant biological resources. 27

28 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 7 Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Conservation/Open Space Element, California Natural Diversity Database, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Plans and Agreements Database. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Discussion: The site is located in the western portion of Stanislaus County. According to the County General Plan, Conservation/Open Space Element, the area is not known to be within a location of archaeological resources. No known historically important resources or paleontological resources have been found on the project site. It is possible that the site could contain undiscovered archaeological resources. Disturbance of any archaeological resources during construction of the project would be considered a significant environmental impact. The project proponent would be required to comply with the General Plan Program, in regards to finding significant resources, which requires the developer to halt construction if cultural resources are encountered unexpectedly during construction and requires consultation with a qualified archaeologist to determine the significance of the resource. Standardized conditions of approval will be added to this project to address any discovery of cultural resources during construction phases of the project. If there are suspected human remains identified through project construction, the Stanislaus County Coroner s Office shall be contacted immediately. If the remains or other archaeological materials are of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission shall be contacted immediately. Implementation of this condition will reduce the potential impact to a minimum. Mitigation: References: None. Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Conservation/Open Space Element. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: I) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? 28

29 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 8 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion: According to the Stanislaus County General Plan, Safety Element, several known faults exist in the Diablo Range, west of Interstate 5. The Ortigalita Fault, part of which is designated as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, is located in the southwestern portion of the County. The project site is located in western Stanislaus County. It has not been identified by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Therefore, there is little impact in regards to this issue. The project will not be connecting to any waste water system or water system. The current house has a well and a septic system. Correspondence from the Department of Environmental Resources has not indicated any issues involved in geology or soils, or waste water disposal or sewer issues associated with a cell tower in this area. Therefore, we can consider the project will have less than significant impacts in regards to geology and soils issues. There is no indication that soils on the project site are incapable of adequately supporting the use of a septic system. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Agriculture and Land Use Element, Farmland Mapping Layer, Stanislaus County Code Title Zoning Ordinance, California State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program - Stanislaus County Farmland, August 2004, Stanislaus County Farmland 2002,Soil Survey of Stanislaus County, California, Western Part, 1997, Department of Environmental Resources Letter from Bella Badal, dated August 27, VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 29

30 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 9 e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion: The County Department of Environmental Resources (DER) is responsible for overseeing hazardous materials and has not indicated any particular concerns in this area. Pesticide exposure is a risk in areas located in the vicinity of agriculture. Sources of exposure include contaminated groundwater and drift from spray applications. Application of sprays is strictly controlled by the Agricultural Commissioner and can only be used after first obtaining permits. Spraying activities on adjacent properties will be conditioned by the Agricultural Commissioners office as well. Therefore, this issue is considered less than significant. The proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local regulations and policies involving the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The applicant should contact the Department of Environmental Resources (DER) regarding appropriate permitting requirements for hazardous materials and/or wastes. The applicant and/or occupants handling hazardous materials or generating hazardous wastes must notify the Department of Environmental Resources relative to California Health and Safety, Division 20, which is a standard condition. The applicant will need to comply with the agency s conditions of approval for the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. The State Department of Toxic Substances (DTS) maintains a Hazardous Waste and Substances List (also known as the Cortese List ), in accordance with California Government Code Section The Cortese List includes data from the Calsites database of hazardous waste sites, the leaking underground storage tank database and the California Integrated Waste Management Board database of sanitary landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. The most current Cortese List indicates that there are no hazardous waste or substance sites in the vicinity. The site is not located in the vicinity of a hazardous materials site compiled pursuant to Government Code section , which would result in a significant hazard to the public or environment at the project site. The proposed project is not located within the jurisdiction of an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. A cell tower on the parcel would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The tower will comply with all Federal Aviation Administration standards in regards to markings and painting of the tower as appropriate. There will be no impact in regards to airports, airplane safety, and safety hazards associated with the tower. The proposed project will comply with the development standards for the Stanislaus Fire Prevention Bureau and the Stanislaus County Sheriff s Department for issues related to emergency evacuation. According to the Stanislaus County General Plan, Safety and Land Use Element, the areas of potential wildland fires are the Diablo Range, located west of Interstate 5, and the Sierra Nevada foothills in the eastern portion of Stanislaus County. The proposed project is not located within the Diablo Range or the Sierra Nevada foothills. Therefore, this item is not applicable. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Safety and Land Use Element, The State Department of Toxic Substances (DTS) Hazardous Waste and Substances List - Department of Environmental Resources Letter from Bella Badal, dated August 27,

31 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 10 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? I) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Discussion: The proposed cell tower will not connect to a water or sewer system. Currently, the site has a well and septic system for the residential structures for their water service (connections). Finally, the proposed project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. The proposed project does not include the placement of housing or other structures within the 100-year flood plain. The Vernalis/Grayson area (in the vicinity of the project) is also located outside the flood zone according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The site is in proximity to the San Joaquin River. The project is not located in an area of major flood inundation. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding as a result of the failure of a dam. The likelihood of a seiche, an earthquake induced wave in a lake, or a tsunami, is less than significant due to the proposed project s distance from the above-mentioned bodies of water. Therefore, the project site is not in an area subject to seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Mitigation: References: None. Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Safety Element, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 31

32 Stanislaus County Initial Study Checklist Page 11 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Discussion: The proposed project involves a Use Permit for a 100-foot tall cell tower. The site is currently zoned A-2-40 (General Agriculture). The General Plan Designation for the site is currently Agriculture. The zoning of the parcels is consistent with the General Plan land use classification. The use on the property is consistent with the County land use designation with approval of a Use Permit for a cell tower. The project will not physically divide an established community to include the surrounding community. The closest cell tower can be found over two miles south of this property. There are also two cell towers over four miles east of the project. The County encourages co-locations for cell tower transmitters, however the applicant has stated that the coverage for these particular cell towers are too far away to be as effective as the proposed location. The applicant is trying to better cover Highway 132 by this particular carrier. The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of any agency with jurisdiction over the project, including but not limited to the Stanislaus County General Plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The proposed use of the project area does not conflict with the applicable zone designation for the project area. The proposed project will not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation: References: None. Stanislaus County Code Title Zoning Ordinance, Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Land Use Element.. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially With Mitigation Included No a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Discussion: The location of all commercially viable mineral resources in Stanislaus County has been mapped by the State Division of Mines and Geology in Special Report 173. There are no known significant resources on or immediately adjacent to the project site. Mitigation: None. References: Stanislaus County General Plan 1, Safety and Land Use Element, State Division of Mines and Geology Special Report