stanislaus county planning commission...21.91.030(b)(1) - siting standards for communication towers...

STANISLAUS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

February 16, 2012

STAFF REPORT

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2011-07VISTA TOWERS - LAKE ROAD

REQUEST: TO INSTALL A NEW WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITY CONSISTING OFA 100 FOOT HIGH LATTICE TOWER.

APPLICATION INFORMATION

Applicant: Vista Towers, Robert MacLachlanProperty Owner: Hall Family Trust, William Joel Hall, trusteeRepresentative: Vista Towers, Misako HillEngineer: MST Architects, Inc., Manuel S. TsihlasLocation: 25251 Lake Road, on the north side of Lake Road, in

the La Grange areaSection, Township, Range: 33 & 34-3-13Supervisorial District: Two (Supervisor Chiesa)Assessor’s Parcel: 008-021-023Referrals: See Exhibit "K"

Environmental Review ReferralsArea of Parcel: 96± acresWater Supply: N/ASewage Disposal: N/AExisting Zoning: A-2-40 (General Agriculture, 40 acre minimum)General Plan Designation: AgricultureCommunity Plan Designation: Not ApplicableWilliamson Act Contract No.: 72-523Environmental Review: Mitigated Negative Declaration

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve this request based on the discussion belowand on the whole of the record provided to us. If the Planning Commission decides to approve theproject, Exhibit A provides an overview of all of the findings required for project approval whichinclude use permit findings.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

This is a request to install a new communication facility with a 100’ tall steel lattice tower and two12’ x 20’ pre-fabricated equipment shelters within a 35’ x 70’ lease area. Antennas and othercommunications equipment will be installed on the tower (12 antennas and a microwave dish). Theproposed tower will be positioned on top of a hill and directly adjacent to several electricaltransmission towers running west to east through the property.

1

UP 2011-07Staff ReportFebruary 16, 2012

The Option Agreement for development of the communication facility reflects the lessor of theproperty as Green Tree Nursery, which is a partnership between William Joel Hall and James Hall.

SITE DESCRIPTION

The 96± acre unimproved project site is located on the north side of Lake Road with open spacein all directions with the exception of a few houses to the south and east; Tuolumne River to thenorth; Turlock Lake to the south; and a nursery, row crops, and orchards to the west. Most of theopen space in the immediately surrounding area is comprised of cattle grazing lands.

The project site receives access off of Lake Road via an existing driveway across the adjoining 10-acre parcel to the west which is under the same ownership; however, the application originallyproposed the use of an existing 12 foot wide road, located on an old PG&E easement across anadjoining parcel south of the proposed cell tower location, as access to the tower site. During theapplication review process, it was discovered that neither the applicant nor the property owner hasthe legal right to use the old PG&E easement. The application has been revised to receive accessfrom Lake Road via a 15 foot wide joint access and utility easement along an existing dirt accessroad across the adjoining 114-acre parcel to the west which is under the ownership of the trusteeof the project site. The Fire Protection District will be requiring a 20 foot minimum width asCondition of Approval No. 25. (See Exhibit C - Conditions of Approval.) The adjoining 114-acreparcel is not part of this request; however, an irrevocable access easement will need to berecorded and provided to the County’s Planning Department prior to issuance of a building permitfor construction of the proposed tower. As a result of the revised access, an amendment toMitigation Measure No. 4 (Condition of Approval No. 31) is being proposed. This amendment isdiscussed in the “Environmental Review” section of this report.

ISSUES

In 2006, the State of California passed SB 1627, which made many changes to wirelesscommunication facilities. This law went into effect in 2007 and some of the new rules requirewireless communication be designed for collocation (sharing of the tower with other serviceproviders) and require environmental review. The environmental review process requires theCounty process the request as a use permit. Prior to SB 1627, this request would have beenprocessed administratively as a Staff Approval Permit; however, the same issues with respect togeneral standards must be addressed under either permit type. The proposed project has thefollowing issues:

Fish and Game Biological StudyIn response to a comment letter received from the Department of Fish and Game regardingpotential impacts to this location as a result of the project, a General Biological Evaluation has beenprepared. An overview of the evaluation is discussed in the “Environmental Review” section of thisreport. Mitigation measures identified in the evaluation have been added to the project asmitigation measures, which are reflected as conditions of approval, and an amended mitigationmeasure is being proposed to address the revised access discussed earlier.

Neighbor ConcernsOn February 2, 2012, staff received a letter, photos, and map from Jim and Ainee Ramont,property owners of a 40-acre adjoining parcel to the west. (See Exhibit I - Letter and pictures from

2


Jim and Aimee Ramont dated February 2, 2012.) The letter expresses concern with the fact thatVista Towers does not have an easement on or through their property (the old PG&E easementdiscussed earlier) and concerns with the aesthetic impact of the proposed tower. As discussedearlier, the applicant has revised the access to the proposed cell tower site. The aesthetic impactsof the tower are discussed in the “Zoning Conformance” section of this report. The neighbors alsohave concerns with vernal pools in the area. As discussed above, a Biological Evaluation has beenprepared and a mitigation measure addressing vernal pools, specifically avoidance of sensitivebiological resources, has been added to the project.

Use of a Lattice Tower versus MonopoleThe proposed tower is a lattice design. Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance Section21.91.030(B)(1) - Siting Standards for Communication Towers specifies that a tower shall be amonopole design unless the Planning Director determines that it would not be visible to the generalpublic, in which case a lattice tower design may be appropriate. A discussion of the proposedtower’s visibility and past considerations of lattice towers is discussed in the “Zoning Conformance”section of this report.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY

The site is currently designated as “Agriculture” in the Stanislaus County General Plan and thisdesignation is consistent with an A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning district. The Agriculturaldesignation recognizes the value and importance of agriculture by acting to preclude incompatibleurban development within agricultural areas.

Goal Two, Policy Eleven, of the General Plan’s Safety Element recognizes communication facilitiesas appropriate uses in the A-2 zoning district provided safety concerns regarding crop dustingactivities are addressed:

Goal Two: Minimize the effects of hazardous conditions that might cause loss of life andproperty.

Policy Eleven: Restrict large communications antennas within the agricultural area with respect tomaximum height, markings (lights), and location to provide maximum safety levels.

Implementation Measures: 1. An amendment to the A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning districtswill be processed by June 30, 1995, to require that, beforecommunication towers are approved, a finding must be made thatmeasures have been taken to minimize the effect of the tower oncrop dusting activities. (On September 19, 1995, the Board ofSupervisors approved an amendment to the zoning ordinanceestablishing siting standards for communication towers in all zoningdistricts.)2. Use permit applications for communication towers in the A-2(General Agriculture) zoning district shall be referred to the cropdusting companies which typically service the area of the proposedtower for notice and comment.

3


Staff has referred this project to all crop dusting companies known to operate in the area. Nocomments have been received to date.

Staff believes this project is consistent with the General Plan. The findings necessary for approvalare discussed in the following Zoning Conformance section.

ZONING CONFORMANCE

All applications for new communication facilities must be reviewed for compliance with theregulations of the applicable zoning district as well as with Chapter 21.91 - CommunicationFacilities of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 21.91 lays out the standards forCommunication Facilities in four (4) categories: general standards; siting standards for towers;siting standards for antennas; and size limits for equipment shelters.

The A-2 (General Agriculture) zoning district classifies communication facilities as Tier Three usessubject to approval of a use permit by the Stanislaus County Planning Commission.

Tier Three uses are defined as uses which are not directly related to agriculture but may benecessary to serve the A-2 district or may be difficult to locate in an urban area. The followingfindings 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 agriculturaluse 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 “mostproductive agricultural areas” as that term is used in the Agricultural element of the GeneralPlan; or the character of the use that is requested is such that the land may reasonably bereturned to agricultural use in the future.

Additionally, the following finding is required for approval of any use permit:

• The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or building applied foris consistent with the General Plan designation of “Agriculture” and will not, under thecircumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, and generalwelfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the use and that it will not bedetrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the generalwelfare of the County.

Section 21.91.030(B)(1) of the County’s Zoning Ordinance allows for a lattice tower if the PlanningDirector determines that it would not be visible to the general public. The proposed lattice towerwill be visible to the general public; however, at the September 4, 2008, Planning Commissionmeeting, the Commission made a specific point that a lattice tower is acceptable if it reduces thenumber of wireless towers in the area.

Section 21.91.040 of the Communication Facilities Ordinance requires that all service providersemploy all reasonable measures to co-locate their antenna equipment on existing towers prior toapplying for approval of new towers. There is no existing communication facility within miles of thissite. The site is between a tower at 20361 Yosemite (Verizon West), approximately 5 miles westof the proposed site, and 30301 Yosemite (Verizon East), approximately 5 miles east of the

4


proposed site. (See Exhibit E - Applicant Coverage Information.) Based on the applicant’scoverage information, currently this area has very limited wireless coverage at all. If this projectis approved: the wireless coverage between Verizon West and Verizon East will be greatlyincreased; there will only be an area west of the community of La Grange that will not have goodwireless coverage; and it will allow for greater co-location of antennas than would a monopole.

As discussed earlier, the neighbors to the south have submitted a letter expressing concern withthe aesthetic impacts the proposed tower may have on their family. The applicant has providedbefore and after photos simulating the proposed tower from both Lake Road and YosemiteBoulevard. These photos show the existing electrical facility towers which cross the project sitefrom east to west. The proposed lattice tower is very similar in design to the electrical facilitytowers.

The project site is enrolled under a Williamson Act contract. Uses requiring a use permit to beapproved on contracted land must be found consistent with specific Williamson Act Principles ofCompatibility. Section 21.20.045(B)(1) of the A-2 zoning district identifies communication facilitiesas a use determined to be consistent with the Principles of Compatibility unless the PlanningCommission makes a finding to the contrary. The following are the required Principles ofCompatibility:

1. The use will not significantly compromise the long-term productive agricultural capability ofthe subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contracted lands in the A-2 zoningdistrict.

2. The use will not significantly displace or impair current or reasonably foreseeableagricultural operations on the subject contracted parcel or parcels or on other contractedlands in the A-2 zoning district. Uses that significantly displace agricultural operations onthe subject contracted parcel or parcels may be deemed compatible if they relate directlyto the production of commercial agricultural products on the subject contracted parcel orparcels or neighboring lands, including activities such as harvesting, processing, orshipping.

3. The use will not result in the significant removal of adjacent contracted land fromagricultural or open-space use.

An Early Consultation referral and a 30-day referral/Initial Study were sent to the Department ofConservation (DOC) for review regarding the Williamson Act. Staff has not received any writtencorrespondence from the DOC regarding this proposed project to date.

Staff believes the necessary findings can be made. With conditions of approval in place, there isno indication that, under the circumstances of this particular case, the proposed project will bedetrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in theneighborhood of the use, or that it will be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements inthe neighborhood or to the general welfare of the county.

5


ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the proposed project was circulatedto various agencies. (See Exhibit K - Environmental Review Referrals.) Based on the Initial Studyprepared for this project, adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is being proposed. (SeeExhibit G - Mitigated Negative Declaration.)

On April 20, 2011, staff received a comment letter from the Department of Fish and Gameregarding potential impacts to this location. Vista Towers hired ACE Environmental, LLC to preparea “General Biological Evaluation”. The evaluation focused on reviewing documented sensitivebiological resources on-site and utilized information found in the literature to determine the potentialfor these species to occur within the Turlock Lake area and the adjacent Cooperstown USGSquadrangles.

The site was then visited by biologist Theresa Sims on August 24, 2011. The site, originallyproposed access road, and immediate areas were surveyed by foot to assess the onsite andsurrounding habitats. A list of all plants and animals observed or detected on or in the site, accessroad, and immediate vicinity was taken and can be found in Initial Study, Appendix B - Floral andFaunal Compendium of the “General Biological Evaluation”.

The California Natural Diversity Database, and other literature, identified 20 sensitive species ashaving been previously reported within the vicinity of the project site. The overall regionallandscape primarily consists of non-native grasslands surrounded by agriculture fields andfarmlands. The topography is rolling hills with intermittent flat lands typically used to farm multipledifferent types of crops. Some examples of agriculture in the area are various fruit trees such aspeach, orange, and apple, as well as almond trees, alfalfa, corn, and other vegetables.Surrounding land uses include open-space in all directions with the exception of a few houses tothe south and east. Most of the open space in the immediately surrounding area is comprised ofagriculture and cattle grazing lands.

Based on the biological evaluation, four mitigation measures were devised to reduce any potentialimpacts to biological resources to a level of less than significant. Mitigation Measure No. 4(Condition of Approval No. 31) required that the access road and project footprint be delineatedprior to construction, but did not take into account the location of the new access road. In orderto ensure minimal impact to biological resources that may be present along the new access road,staff is proposing a minor addition to Mitigation Measure No. 4 (Condition of Approval No. 31) asfollows: (addition is shown in underline and bold print)

31. The project footprint and access road should be clearly delineated and marked to ensureno construction activity goes beyond the existing access road and the project footprint.Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction surveyalong the proposed access road and define avoidance measures to be implementedif sensitive biological resources are present at that time.

In order to modify the original mitigation measure, it must be found that the new mitigation measureis equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and that it, initself, will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment. Staff believes the

6


proposed substitution is more effective in addressing potential impacts associated with theproposed project, and recommends the Planning Commission adopt the appropriate findings andmodify the mitigation measure.

******

Note: Pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 711.4, all project applicants subject tothe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) shall pay a filing fee for each project; therefore,the applicant will further be required to pay $2,158.50 for the Department of Fish and Game andthe Clerk Recorder filing fees. The attached Conditions of Approval ensure that this will occur.

Report written by: Bill Carlson, Senior Planner, January 31, 2012

Attachments: Exhibit A - FindingsExhibit B - MapsExhibit C- Conditions of Approval Exhibit D - Applicant’s Information including revised access mapsExhibit E - Applicant Coverage InformationExhibit F - Initial StudyExhibit G - Mitigated Negative DeclarationExhibit H - Mitigation Monitoring PlanExhibit I - Letter and pictures from Jim and Aimee Ramont dated

February 2, 2012Exhibit J - Email from Misako Hill of Vista Towers dated February 3, 2012Exhibit K - Environmental Review Referrals

7

Exhibit AFindings and Actions Required for Project Approval

Based on the above report and the entire project record, staff recommends the PlanningCommission:

1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to California Code of RegulationsSection 15074(b), by finding that on the basis of the whole record, including the Initial Studyand any comments received, that there is no substantial evidence the project will have asignificant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflectsStanislaus County’s independent judgement and analysis.

2. Find That:

A. The substitute language for Mitigation Measure No. 4, identified as Condition ofApproval No. 31, is equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potentialsignificant effects and that it, in itself, will not cause any potentially significant effecton the environment.

3. Adopt the Mitigation Monitoring Plan, with the substitute language for Mitigation MeasureNo. 4, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15074(d).

4. Order the filing of a Notice of Determination with the Stanislaus County Clerk-Recorder’sOffice pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21152 and CEQA Guidelines Section15075.

5. Find that:

A. The use as proposed will not be substantially detrimental to or in conflict withagricultural use of other property in the vicinity; and

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 elementof the General Plan; or the character of the use that is requested is such that theland may reasonably be returned to agricultural use in the future.

C. The establishment, maintenance, and operation of the proposed use or buildingapplied for is consistent with the General Plan designation of "Agriculture" and willnot, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,safety, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood ofthe use and that it will not be detrimental or injurious to property and improvementsin the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the County.

D. The proposed use is consistent with all of the Williamson Act Principles ofCompatibility under Government Code Section 51238.1

6. Approve Use Permit Application No. 2011-07 - Vista Towers - Lake Road, subject to theattached Conditions of Approval.

8

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT A

MODESTO RESERVOIR

TURLOCK LAKE

YOSEMITE BLV

LA GRANGE RD S

HA

WK

INS

RD

LAKE RD

CR

ABTR

EE R

D

LAKE RD

DAVIS RD

YOSEMITE BLV

UP 2011‐07VISTA TOWERS – LAKE ROAD

AREA MAP

SITE

MERCED COUNTY

TUOLUMNECOUNTY

LA GRANGE

9

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT B

TURLOCK LAKE

LAKE RD

YOSEMITE BLV

LAKE RD

UP 2011‐07VISTA TOWERS – LAKE ROADGENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION

AG

SITE

AG

AG

10

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT B-1

TURLOCK LAKE

LAKE RD

YOSEMITE BLV

LAKE RD


ZONING DESIGNATION

SITE

A‐2‐40

A‐2‐40

A‐2‐40

11

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT B-2

LAKE RD

YOSEMITE BLV

LAKE RD

TURLOCK LAKE


AERIAL PHOTO (2008)

SITE

12

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT B-3

DRAFT

NOTE: Approval of this application is valid only if the following conditions are met. This permitshall expire unless activated within 18 months of the date of approval. In order to activate thepermit, it must be signed by the applicant and one of the following actions must occur: (a) a validbuilding 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 CountyOrdinance 21.104.030)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2011-07VISTA TOWERS - LAKE ROAD

Department of Planning and Community Development

1. This use shall be conducted as described in the application and supporting information asapproved by the Planning Commission and in accordance with Chapter 21.91 -Communication Facilities of the Stanislaus County Zoning Ordinance.

2. The facility shall meet all yard requirements for structures in the particular zoning districtin which it is located.

3. Identification signs, including emergency phone numbers of the service provider, shall beposted at all tower and equipment sites. A plan for any proposed signs indicating thelocation, height, area of the sign, and message must be approved by the Planning Directorprior to installation.

4. All unused or obsolete towers and equipment shall be removed from their respective siteswithin six months after their operation has ceased, at the landowner’s expense.

5. Antennas may be mounted on communication towers and are subject to all applicablebuilding code requirements including building structure and wind load integrity.

6. The overall height of the tower, including antenna, mounting hardware, or base, shall notexceed 100 feet.

7. The wireless communication facility is subject to all other applicable regulations andpermits, including those of the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) of the State of Californiaand the Federal Communication Commission (FCC).

8. All security lighting shall be hooded and directed away from adjoining roads and properties.

9. The applicant is required to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the County, its officers, andemployees from any claim, action, or proceedings against the County to set aside theapproval of the project which is brought within the applicable statute of limitations. TheCounty shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding to set asidethe approval and shall cooperate fully in the defense.

13

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT C

UP 2011-07 DRAFTConditions of ApprovalFebruary 16, 2012Page 2

10. The project shall not create odors, dust or noise levels which would constitute a publicnuisance. All parking and driveways shall be dust-proofed to the satisfaction of thePlanning Director and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

11. The hours for construction shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thehours for on-site maintenance and repair shall be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

12. Should any archeological or human remains be discovered during development, work shallbe immediately halted within 150 feet of the find until it can be evaluated by a qualifiedarchaeologist. If the find is determined to be historically or culturally significant, appropriatemitigation measures to protect and preserve the resource shall be formulated andimplemented.

13. Prior to issuance of a building permit, verification of a recorded irrevocable 20 foot wideaccess easement shall be provided to the Planning Department. The easement shallremain in effect for as long as the communication facility is located on the subject property.

14. Developer shall pay all Public Facilities Impact Fees and Fire Facilities Fees as adopted byResolution of the Board of Supervisors. The fees shall be payable at the time of issuanceof the building permit for any construction in the development project and shall be basedon the rates in effect at the time of building permit issuance.

15. Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, prior to construction, the developer shallbe 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 Corpsof Engineers are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining allappropriate permits or authorizations from the Corps, including all necessary water qualitycertifications, if necessary.

16. Pursuant to Sections 1600 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, prior toconstruction, the developer shall be responsible for contacting the California Departmentof Fish and Game and shall be responsible for obtaining all appropriate streambedalteration agreements, permits, or authorizations, if necessary.

17. Prior to construction: The developer shall be responsible for contacting the CaliforniaRegional Water Quality Control Board to determine if a “Notice of Intent” is necessary, andshall prepare all appropriate documentation, including a Storm Water Pollution PreventionPlan. Once complete, and prior to construction, a copy of the Storm Water PollutionPrevention Plan shall be submitted to the Stanislaus County Department of Planning andCommunity Development.

18. Pursuant to the federal and state Endangered Species Acts, prior to construction, thedeveloper shall be responsible for contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service andCalifornia Department of Fish and Game to determine if any special status plant or animalspecies are present on the project site, and shall be responsible for obtaining allappropriate permits or authorizations from these agencies, if necessary.

14


19. The Department of Planning and Community Development shall record a Notice ofAdministrative Conditions and Restrictions with the County Recorder’s Office within 30 daysof project approval. The Notice includes: Conditions of Approval/Development Standardsand Schedule; any adopted Mitigation Measures; and a project area map.

20. Pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code (effective January 1,2012), the applicant is required to pay a Department of Fish and Game filing fee at the timeof recording a “Notice of Determination.” Within five (5) days of approval of this project bythe Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors, the applicant shall submit to theDepartment of Planning and Community Development a check for $2,158.50, madepayable to Stanislaus County, for the payment of Fish and Game, and Clerk Recorderfiling fees.

Pursuant to Section 711.4 (e)(3) of the California Fish and Game Code, no project shall beoperative, vested, or final, nor shall local government permits for the project be valid, untilthe filing fees required pursuant to this section are paid.

Department of Public Works

21. No parking, loading, or unloading of vehicles shall be permitted within the right-of-way ofLake Road.

22. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for any work that is done in the County roadright-of-way.

23. Public Works will approve the location of the driveway for the access road onto Lake Road.

Building Permits Division

24. Development shall comply with 2010 California Building Code, California Code ofRegulations Title 24 and ANSI/TIA 222-G.

Stanislaus Consolidated Fire Protection District

25. The developer shall provide an emergency vehicle access way per the 2011 California FireCode Section 503. The access shall have an unobstructed width of not less then 20 feetand an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. Fire access roadsshall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (75,000pounds) and shall be provided with a surface as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved (50 foot outside,30 foot inside turning radius). The gradient of a fire apparatus access road shall not exceedthe maximum approved (10 percent).

Turlock Irrigation District (TID)

26. TID’s electric utility requires a 10 foot minimum electrical easement or Public UtilityEasement, not 6 feet as shown.

15


27. The owner/developer must apply for a facility change for any pole or electrical facilityrelocation. Facility changes are performed at developer’s expense.

Mitigation Measures

28. If construction activity must occur during the nesting season (generally February-Augustwith its peak between March 1 and June 30), a biologist shall conduct a survey of theimpact areas to verify that no active nests occur within the project footprint or within a 500’radius around the impact areas at least 3 days prior to grading, but no more than 15 daysprior to grading.

29. A preconstruction burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted no more than 30 daysprior to grubbing or grading of the site. If burrowing owls are found within the project footprint or within 500 feet of the site, mitigation or minimization efforts will be recommended.

30 A Focused Swainson’s Hawk survey should be conducted starting in Spring 2012 todetermine if any Swainson’s hawks nest within ½ mile of the proposed project site.

31. The project footprint and access road should be clearly delineated and marked to ensureno construction activity goes beyond the existing access road and the project footprint.Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey along theproposed access road and define avoidance measures to be implemented if sensitivebiological resources are present at that time.

******

Please note: If Conditions of Approval/Development Standards are amended by the PlanningCommission or Board of Supervisors, such amendments will be noted in the upper right-handcorner of the Conditions of Approval/Development Standards; new wording is in bold and deletedwording will have a line through it.

I:\Planning\Staff Reports\UP\2011\UP 2011-07 - Vista Towers - Lake Rd\staff report.wpd

16

17

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT D

18

Reinc

Typewritten Text

34

Reinc

Typewritten Text

EXHIBIT E

stanislaus county planning commission...21.91.030(b)(1) - siting standards for communication towers...

Documents