13-06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and that is either (a) an activity undertaken directly by a public agency or by a person that is funded by a public agency; and (b) an activity of a person requiring a lease, permit, license, certificate or other entitlement 3. Notably, the Wireless Communications Facilities Policy does not require that the "master plan applications" be approved in conjunction with the application for the wireless communications facility. The Town has consistently interpreted the requirement that the review of the 3-5 year master plan to not constitute an approval of the plan or an obligation by the Town to approval any of the future sites shown on the master plan application. Rather, if the applicant were to propose a facility on one of those sites, it would be required to obtain a conditional use permit. Thus, the master plan requirement is merely an informational tool to allow the Planning Commission and City Council to understand the context in which they are considering the specific wireless facility application. Given the master plan application requirement's mere informational purpose, it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Therefore, it is not a project under CEQA. Furthermore, under the Town's regulations governing wireless communications facilities, the applicant is entitled to propose a wireless facility at a location of its choosing, and the Town, in the course of considering that application, must study the impacts of the proposed facility. There is no requirement that the applicants submit blanket applications for all necessary facilities in the coming years. Contrary to the commentator's perspective, the Town is not required to review the environmental impacts of other locations and weigh them against the applicant's proposal. Thus, the "project" for CEQA purposes is. limited to the particular wireless communications facility for which an application has been submitted. WHEREAS, CEQA provides a low threshold for preparation of an EIR. The Town appropriately reviewed the project and comments submitted on the Mitigated Negative Declaration under the fair argument standard to determine if there was substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, thus requiring preparation of an EIR rather than the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Using this standard, the Town determined that although the project may be controversial, neither the Project as analyzed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration nor public comments on the document created a fair argument that the Project may result in a significant environmental effect. Therefore no EIR was required. The comments often reflected disagreement with the project and varying opinions about its effects, but the opinions were not supported by substantial evidence to meet the fair argument standard. WHEREAS, preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration was appropriate under CEQA because there is no substantial evidence that the project as mitigated could result in significant or potentially significant environmental effects; and WHEREAS, a staff report, dated January 19, 2006 and incorporated herein by reference, described and analyzed the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Project for the Planning Commission. 2