Loading...
Ordinance No. 1235 (20)SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING & PROOF OF PUBLICATION City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 (323)583-8811 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Vernon will conduct a Public Hearing, which you may attend. PLACE: Vernon City Hall, City Council Chambers 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 DATE & Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. TIME: (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) PURPOSE: To consider: (1) The City of Vernon intent to adopt an ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Distributed Generation within the city and clarify existing regulations regarding billboard signs. (2) The recommendation from the Vernon Director of Public Works, Water & Development Services Department to adopt a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment. DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW: A copy of the proposed ordinance and proposed negative declaration will be available for public review at the address mentioned below between the hours of 7:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The public is also invited to submit written comments on the proposed negative declaration prior to the hearing. The comment period runs from November 19, 2015 to December 15, 2015. Comments received after that date may not receive full consideration. Please send your comments and the name of the contact person to: Samuel Kevin Wilson, Director of Public Works, Water & Development Services City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue, Vernon, CA 90058 (323)583-8811 Email: kwilson@ci.vernon.ca.us If you challenge the granting of this Zoning Amendment or any provisions thereof in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Vernon at, or prior to, the meeting. The hearing may be continued or adjourned or cancelled and rescheduled to a stated time and place without further notice of a public hearing. Dated: kk Z -.� I I �- '�. Maria Ax0a, City Clerk City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 (323)583-8811 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Vernon will conduct a Public Hearing, which you may attend. PLACE: Vernon City Hall, City Council Chambers 4305 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 DATE & Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. TIME: (or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard) PURPOSE: To consider: (1) The City of Vernon intent to adopt an ordinance to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance to establish regulations for Distributed Generation within the city and clarify existing regulations regarding billboard signs. (2) The recommendation from the Vernon Director of Public Works, Water & Development Services Department to adopt a Negative Declaration in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act because the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment. DOCUMENTS FOR REVIEW: A copy of the proposed ordinance and proposed negative declaration will be available for public review at the address mentioned below between the hours of 7:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m. Monday through Thursday. The public is also invited to submit written comments on the proposed negative declaration prior to the hearing. The comment period runs from November 19, 2015 to December 15, 2015. Comments received after that date may not receive full consideration. Please send your comments and the name of the contact person to: Samuel Kevin Wilson, Director of Public Works, Water & Development Services City of Vernon 4305 Santa Fe Avenue, Vernon, CA 90058 (323) 583-8811 Email: kwilson@ci.vernon.ca.us If you challenge the granting of this Zoning Amendment or any provisions thereof in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the hearing described -in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Vernon at, or prior to, the meeting: " The hearing may be continued or adjourned or cancelled and rescheduled to a stated time and place without further notice of a public hearing. Dated: .�/. (2 Maria AY10a, City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss CITY OF VERNON ) I, Sergio Canales Assistant Planner of the City of Vernon, do hereby certify that on Monday, November 23, 2015, mailed a copy of Notice of Public Hearing to be held on December 15, 2015, regarding an Adoption of a Negative Declaration and Adoption of Amendments of the City of Vernon Zoning Ordinance, to the interested parties and agencies on the attached list, by United States Mail with postage. /7 Date: IS Sergio C ales, Assistant Planner A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of the document. State of California } ) ss County of Los Angeles ) On ��, ��J/ before me, M ` G� , notary public, personally appeared Sergio Canales who proved to me on the is of satisfactory evidence to be the person(-&) whose name{-s) is/;tee subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she%key executed the same in hisAiff/theif authorized capacity(ies), and that by his herAheir signature{ on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the persons) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS m hand and official seal. M LTFUJI,. Y #t 20y: Z < Calif ,,., _ r � LN County Signature DaC23,2ot8 Sig ture otary Public Qwik MARISOL TRWILLO Co naso" ♦ 2=18 ftN1W Los rAMM ! !!1?'ii� �� Ke +�x��}��.'i{aI.J -" v.'i`-�.3 FYI ��. Easy Peel®Labels Use Avery® Template 51600 j City of Huntington Park Planning Department 6550 Miles Avenue Huntington Park, CA 90255 L.A. County Board of Supervisors Director of Planning James Hertl — Room 1390 320 W. Temple Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 A Bend along line to Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge - j Lucille Roybal-Allard Congresswoman 500 Citadel Drive, Ste 320 Commerce, CA 90040 Gloria Molina Board of Supervisors 500 W. Temple St., Ste 856 Los Angeles, CA 90012 South Coast Air Quality Mgmt City of Long Beach District (AQMD) Office of the City Manager 21865 E. Copley Drive 333 W. Ocean Blvd., 13's floor Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Long Beach, CA 90902 Brian Scanlon E.J. Contreras L.A. County Public Works Owens -Brockway Mapping & Property Mgmt. 2901 Fruitland Avenue 900 S. Fremont Avenue, 10th Floor Vernon, CA 90058 Alhambra, CA 91803 City of Commerce Planning Department 2535 Commerce Way Commerce, CA 90040 City of Bell Planning Department 6330 Pine Street Bell, CA 90201 City of Cudahy Planning Department 5220 Santa Ana Street Cudahy, CA 90201 L.A. County Sanitation District P.O. Box 4998 Whittier, CA 90607 California Water Service Comp 3316 West Beverly Boulevard Montebello, CA 90640 Marisa Olguin Chamber of Commerce 3801 Santa Fe Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 Maywood Mutual Water Co. 3 6151 Heliotrope Avenue Maywood, CA 90270 L.A. County Flood Control District 900 S. Fremont Avenue 81h Floor Alhambra, CA 91803 ❑® ' AVEriv® 51604D 1 John Kinas United States Aluminum 3663 Bandini Boulevard Vernon, CA 90023 Ms. Gutierrez 924 S. Mott Street Los Angeles, CA 90023 James H. Hillands Heger Realty Corp. 5657 E. Washington Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90040 Joseph R. Garruba California Portland Cement Co. 2025 E. Financial Way Glendora, CA 91740 J.J. Little J.J. Little Company, Inc. 9945 Malgar Drive Whittier, CA 90603 L.R.Luppen Metal Products Engineering 3050 Leonis Boulevard Vernon, CA 90058 Ellen Orlando Karen Lehrer 2300 E. 11`h Street Los Angeles, CA 90021 Dave Karrker California Water Service 5243 E. Sheila Street Commerce, CA 90022 City of Maywood L.A. Unified School District So. Cal Edison Planning Department Office of Environmental Health &Safety 333 South Beaudry Ave., 20"' Floor 1924 Cashdan Street 4319 Slauson Avenue Los Angeles, 0017 9n Compton, CA 90220 Maywood, CA 90270 en Striegler Attention: Glen rie Attn: Mike Frazier Suk Chon City of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles Planning Department Department of Public Works 200 North Spring St. Land Development Division Los Angeles, CA 90012 P.O. Box 1460 Alhambra, CA 91802-1460 t=tiquettes faciles a peter i Sens de Repliez a la hachure afirt de ; dent www.averycom Utilisez le gabarit AVERYO 51600 chSens r6veler le rebord Pop-upTIA j 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy Peep Labels i ♦ Bend along line to 11 AVE%2Y® 5160® i Use AveryO Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm i 1 Reynan L. Ledesma Department of Water & Power L.A. 111 N. Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90012 Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad 3770 E. Washington Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90023 The Gas Company (So. Cal Gas Co.) P.O. Box 3150 San Dimas, CA 91773 L.A. Junction Railroad 4433 Exchange Avenue Vernon, CA 90058 Etiquettes faciles i peter ; Repliez a la hachure afittde www.avery.com Utilisez le gabarit AVERIf®5160® i cha gement r6veler le rebord Pop-upTM j 1-800-GO-AVERY i ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Distributed Generation Conditional Use Permit Requirements 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Vernon, 4305 Santa Fe Avenue, Vernon, CA 90058 3. Contact person and phone number: Kevin Wilson 4. Project location: City of Vernon 5. Project sponsor's name and address: City of Vernon, Department of Gas and Electric (DG&E) 6. General plan designation: Y91ies 7. Zoning: Industrial with various overlays 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The City of Vernon General Plan (Section 2.2) and Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (Section 26 4 1-3) currently require power generation projects to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). DG&E conducted a review to identify distribution system limitations, environmental constraints and financial considerations related to allowing various distributed power generation projects to be allowed by "right" instead of through the CUP process Based on this review process DG&E is considering the following options: 1) Maintain the status quo (CUP required for all power -generating proiects): 2) Exempt solar power -generating units under 1 megawatt (MW) in size from the CUP requirement and maintain the CUP requirements for other generatinq facilities: and 3) Allow solar -generatinq units less than 1 megawatt in size without a CUP and prohibit all other generation facilities. This Initial Study (IS) addresses these options If the status quo remains (Option 1) every generating facility would continue to require a CUP and no IS is necessary as there would be no "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Option 2. solar projects less than 1 MW would be allowed without a CUP and this IS evaluates that potential environmental impacts associated with allowing these solar power generating units to be constructed without a CUP. Under this option, other power generating facilities would continue to require a CUP (i.e., no change to existing conditions) Consequently, these other proiects would require a review under CEQA as part of the CUP process and no additional analysis is required in this IS Similar to Option 2. under Option3, solar proiects less than 1 MW would be allowed without a CUP and this IS evaluates that potential environmental impacts associated with allowing these solar power proiects to be constructed without a CUP. Under this option, other power generating facilities would not be allowed. This scenario would be similar to the City denying CUPS for these other proiects under the current policy. There would be no changes to the environment and no significant or adverse environmental impacts associated with these other power generating proiects. Consequently, no additional impact analysis is necessary as part of this IS. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the projects surroundings: The City of Vernon General Plan contains one land use category (industrial)and five Overlay Districts (Commercial. Rendering. Slaughtering. Housing, and Emergency Shelter). All uses allowed in the Industrial category are permitted in the Overlay Districts. Each Overlay District allows certain specialized uses not permitted in other areas of the City. All power generation facilities require a CUP for approval. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) None. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture and Forestry ❑ Air Quality Resources ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology /Soils ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Hydrology / Water Quality ❑ Land Use / Planning ❑ Population / Housing ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Public Services ❑ Utilities / Service Systems ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the posed project, nothing further is required. Signre Date Signature Date EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" 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 Impact" 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 Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." 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 "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, 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) Impacts 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 Significant 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 significance 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 significance. 4 Issues: I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? Comments: Solar generating projects less than 1 MW would typically be roof -mounted (buildings, carports, etc.) or on open land. These projects would typically require approximately 105,000 square feet. The very limited open space resources in the City consist of the channelized Los Angeles River and utility easements. There are no scenic vistas or scenic highways that traverse the City. The entire City, including the open space has the visual character of an urban setting and the installation of numerous solar power facilities would not degrade the visual character. Removing the ability to authorize other generation project under a CUP would not result in visual impacts since these facilities could not be built. II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In Potentially Less Than Less Than No determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are Significant Significant Significant Impact significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Impact with Impact California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Mitigation (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an Incorporated optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. -- Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of ❑ ❑ p 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? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest ❑ ❑ ❑ land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land ❑ 0 ❑ ER to non -forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due ❑ ❑ ❑ to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non -forest use? Comments: The City is a highly urban area with no agriculture or forest resources. III. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria Potentially Less Than Less Than No established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution Significant Significant Significant Impact control district may be relied upon to make the following Impact with Impact determinations. -- Would the project: Mitigation Incorporated 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? Comments: Item a): The currently applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan for the South Coast Air Basin is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) that was developed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The AQMP addresses nonattainment pollutants ozone (and ozone precursors NOx and ROGs) and PM2.5. The SCAQMD adopts rules and regulations that apply to sources under its jurisdiction, which include stationary sources. Solar PV systems installed on developed property would not result in air emissions from operations and therefore would not be subject to the requirements of Regulation XIII. Construction activities associated with installation of PV systems would be anticipated to be minor, and would not require major grading or other earthmoving activities. Accordingly, the installation of solar PV units that are less than 1 MW would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMP. There would be no impact associated with the implementation of the AQMP. Item b): Solar PV systems would not result in air emissions from operations. Construction activities associated with installation of PV systems would be anticipated to be minor, and would not require major grading or other earthmoving activities. The installation of solar PV units that are less than 1 MW would not result in air emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's regional or localized significance thresholds for construction. Impacts would be less than significant. Item c): Because PV systems would not result in air emissions from operations, no cumulative operational impacts would result. Construction impacts for individual projects would be less than the SCAQMD's significance thresholds, and therefore would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. Impacts would be less than significant. To the extent that electrical power from the PV systems replaces power from local fossil -fueled power facilities, the installation of solar PV systems could result in a minor improvement in air quality in the basin. Item d): Solar PV systems would not emit toxic air contaminants that would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Construction activities would emit minor amounts of diesel particulate matter; however, because health effects associated with exposure to diesel particulate matter are long-term and construction activities would be very short a term, construction activities would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant. Item e): Solar power generation sources are not considered to be sources of objectionable odors, and are not listed under the categories of sources identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Accordingly, there would be no impact from odors. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ N ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ N Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: The only open space in the City is the Los Angeles River that is completely channelized in a highly urbanized area, minimizing the presence and value of habitat for biological resources. The ordinance and code changes proposed would apply to Industrial zoned property and no impacts would occur to the LA River channel. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ® ❑ historical resource as defined in § 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or ❑ ❑ ❑ N site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 7 formal cemeteries? Comments: Items a & b: CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 establishes rules for the analysis of historical resources, including archaeological resources, in order to determine whether a project may have a substantial adverse effect on the significance of the resource. An historical resource, according to the State Historic Preservation Office, includes buildings that are at least 45 years old and older. The City's General Plan Resource Management Element promulgates the following goal and policies with respect to cultural resources: • GOAL R-4: Recognize and preserve Vernon's contributions to the industrial and architectural history of Los Angeles • Policies: o R-4.1: Expand available cultural resource information by establishing a City -maintained database of historic sites and facilities; o R-4.2: Support the efforts of interested agencies or private organizations to undertake surveys or other research efforts to document buildings and places in Vernon of historic and/or architectural significance; o R-4.3: Ensure compliance with C EQA provisions regarding cultural resources at the time buildings or places of identified or potential historic or architectural merit are proposed for demolition; and, o R-4.4: Establish local programs and practices that recognize places of local or other historic significance. A review of the most recent update to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) database by the National Park Service shows that no NRHP-listed historic buildings or archaeological sites have been previously recorded within the City of Vernon (NPS 2015). None of the buildings within the City of Vernon are identified as historic resources eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources in the City's General Plan (Vernon 2009). Items c: The City of Vernon is located in a highly urbanized area. The proposed projects would be developed in an area that has been previously disturbed in conjunction with the City's industrial uses. Construction of the 1 MW solar generating projects would be similar to other commercial construction/renovation projects. Grading or excavation activities would be limited, if necessary at all. Because excavations would be limited and occur in previously disturbed areas, the likelihood of encountering a subsurface paleontological resource during the project's construction is considered low. Item d: Because the proposed project would be developed in an area that has been previously disturbed and project excavations are expected to be limited, the likelihood of encountering any human remains during the construction of a 1 MW solar facility is considered remote. In the event that human remains are uncovered during construction, California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 require all work to stop in the area of the find and notify the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission. Compliance with these regulatory requirements would ensure impacts to human remains are less than significant. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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? ❑ ❑ N ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ 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 18-1-B of the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Uniform Building Code (1994), 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? Comments: Item a): Rupture of a known earthquake fault and ground shaking The City of Vernon, as with the entire Southern California region, is subject to secondary effects from earthquakes. The City of Vernon is not located within a designated Earthquake Fault Zone (DOC 2015). According to the City's General Plan Safety Element, there are no major faults identified within the City of Vernon; however, many fault systems traverse Los Angeles County and the broader region which have the potential to cause damage in the City in the event of an earthquake. The City's General Plan (Figure S-1, Regional Faults) identifies the regional fault system within 20 miles of the City. The Las Cienegas Fault is located adjacent to the City (Vernon 2009). While the City of Vernon a would potentially be subject to seismic ground shaking due to earthquakes, the project does not propose construction of habitable structures of any kind. The design and construction of the 1 MW solar facilities would meet current City of Vernon's Building Code and the most recent California Building Code (CBC). The nature of the proposed project would not expose people to potentially adverse effects related to seismic ground shaking. Therefore, project impacts related to seismic ground shaking would be less than significant. Liquefaction A secondary effect of ground shaking is soil liquefaction. Liquefaction is a process by which sediments below the water table temporarily lose strength and behave as a liquid rather than a solid. In the liquefied condition, soil may deform enough to cause damage to buildings and other structures. Seismic shaking is the most common cause of liquefaction. The General Plan Safety Element includes Figure S-2, Liquefaction Zone that illustrates the areas susceptible to liquefaction within the City. The Safety Element states that liquefaction is not considered a serious threat in Vernon. Because liquefaction is not considered a serious threat, combined with the City's standard practice of requiring engineering studies and conformance with the City Building Code and CBC, seismic -related ground impacts (including liquefaction) are considered to be less than significant. Landslides Seismically -induced landslides tend to occur in areas with weak soil and rock on sloping terrain. Generally these areas are characterized by steep slopes composed of weak materials that may fail when shaken by an earthquake. The topography of the City of Vernon and adjoining area are relatively flat. In the absence of significant ground slopes, the potential for seismically - induced landslides to occur is considered negligible and no impacts would result. Item b): The City of Vernon is highly urbanized and developed with limited open space. Construction and operation of 1 MW solar generation systems would not alter this condition. Construction activities associated with installation of PV systems would not require major grading or other earthmoving activities. In addition, the City is relatively flat, with very little variation in topography. Implementation of the project would not result in substantial changes in topography or create erosion or unstable conditions. The potential for erosion and/or unstable conditions is less than significant. Item c) & d): The geology of the region is comprised of structural trough overlying bedrock formations between the Western Shelf and the San Gabriel Mountains. This trough has been filled with marine and alluvial deposits of Quaternary and Tertiary age. Deposits nearly 30,000-feet thick are present near the central part of the basin and rise sharply to the east and to the west. The local geologic unit within this deep trough that represent the deposits around Vernon is comprised of Quaternary aged unconsolidated floodplain deposits of silt, sand, gravel and minor amounts of clay soil underlain by Tertiary and continental deposits. Expansive soils and unstable geologic units are not expected in the area. As discussed in Checklist Responses above, impacts relative to seismically induced ground -shaking (including liquefaction) would be less than significant. The project area is not located in an area subject to on- or off -site landslides. Seismic ground- shaking impacts would be less than significant with conformance with current City Building Codes and CBC standards, as well as standard engineering practices. No significant impact would result. Item e): The project does not require the development of either septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. No related impacts would result. VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for ❑ ❑ ❑ the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: Item a): Solar PV systems would not emit greenhouse gases. Construction activities would emit minor amounts of greenhouse gases; however, the construction activities would be temporary. The SCAQMD has established a threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year for industrial projects and also recommend amortizing construction emissions over a 30-year period. Emissions from construction of solar PV systems would be well below this level. Impacts would be less than significant. To the extent that solar PV systems replace fossil -fuel generated power in the air basin, there would be a beneficial effect on GHG emissions. Item b): Solar PV systems would be consistent with plans and policies to provide renewable energy sources and reduce reliance on fossil fuel -generated power. Installation of solar PV systems would therefore not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. There would be no impact. VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Would the project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ p ® ❑ 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 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan 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 10 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? Comments: Items a — b: Though hazardous materials will be used during construction and are components of solar power generating systems, the types and quantities used will not create a significant hazard to the public. The hazardous materials used during construction will consist of fuels, paints, solvents, welding supplies and cleaners. These materials are commonly used in construction and it is expected that the construction crews are familiar with the handling, storage and cleanup requirements for these items. The use of these materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Though the solar power system components contain hazardous materials, these materials are not in a form that can be readily released and cause and exposure to the public or the environment. Additionally, the metals and other components of the systems continue to have value even after they are no longer functional, and it is expected that the system components will be recycled when they are no longer functional. Item c: The only school located within the City is the City of Vernon Elementary School, located at 2360 East Vernon Avenue. There are several schools are located within one -quarter of a mile south of the City boundary. The use of hazardous materials associated with construction of I MW solar generating systems are not expected to result in significant impact to these schools. Item d: It is possible that a solar generating project could be proposed on a site in the City that is on the list of hazardous materials sites. However, construction and operations of a 1MW solar power system would not create significant impacts related to contaminated soils and groundwater at the site. Similar to other construction/improvement projects, if contaminated soil is excavated and removed during construction, the contaminated soil would be transported and disposed in accordance with state and federal requirements. No significant impacts are expected in the event that a solar power project is proposed and constructed on a site that is on the list of hazardous material sites. Items a and f: The nearest airport to the City is the Compton Municipal Airport, located over 7 miles to the south of the City. Item g: The construction of a 1MW solar generating project would be similar to other commercial construction/renovation projects and would not be expected to interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. Item h: The City of Vernon is located within a highly developed urbanized area with no wild lands. IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the proj ect: 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 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ No Impact u ►O 11 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 off -site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the ❑ ❑ p 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 ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: Items a) and f): Water discharges are not expected from the project and violations of water quality standards or water degradation would only occur as a result of an accident during construction involving the release of hazardous materials. Construction contractors are familiar with the management practices required by the California General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, and it is expected that construction contractors have the training and equipment to contain and control hazardous materials that may spill as a result of an accident. Consequently, environmental impacts would be less than significant. Additionally, potential impacts to storm water may occur if the solar power projects result in panels or structure installation on undeveloped land. It is anticipated that best management practices required by the construction storm water general permit will minimize this potential impact. Item b): The City pumps groundwater from local, deep wells in the Central Groundwater Basin and provides Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's (MWD) treated surface water, which is a blend of Colorado River water and water from northern California. Solar power projects are not expected to use substantial quantities of water during construction or operations. The project would also not impede groundwater recharge in the basin. Items c) and d): The solar power projects would be developed on roof -tops, car port covers or previously graded lands, and construction of 1MW solar power projects would not be expected to change drainage patterns. Items g) and h): Based on a review of the FEMA's National Flood Hazard Layer, developable lands in the City are not in a 100-year floodplain. In the rainy season of 2004-2005, the Los Angeles area received the second highest rainfall ever recorded, approximately three times the normal amount. The river channel adequately accommodated this flow. Item i): Nearly all of the land in Vernon lies within the potential inundation areas for both Hansen Dam and Sepulveda Dam which are located in the San Fernando Valley, more than 20 miles northwest of the City. As indicated in the City's Safety Element, flows from a failure of the Sepulveda dam would take more than eight hours to reach the and City and flow from Hansen Dam is predicted to take more than 19 hours to reach Vernon. The flow from either dam is estimated to peak at a depth of 2 feet in the City. Construction of new solar power projects would not be expected to result in exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding. 12 Item j): The City of Vernon is located approximately 12 miles from the coast it is surrounded by urban development for at least 5 miles in all directions and is in an area with generally flat topography. Consequently there is no threat of inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows. X. LAND USE AND PLANNING -- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ CK ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural ❑ ❑ ❑ community conservation plan? Comments: The project includes changing the City code to allow 1 MW solar generating projects without a CUP in commercial and industrial zones and either continuing or eliminating the allowance of other distributed generation projects with a CUP. Since the project includes a change in land use policy and regulation, it would not conflict with these policies and regulations once enacted. Changes to the policy for solar power generating projects in commercial and industrial zones are not expected to physically divide a community or conflict with habitat/natural community conservation plans. XI. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that ❑ ❑ p 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? Comments: The change in policy and allowance for 1 MW solar generating projects without a CUP and/or the removal of the CUP process for other types of distributed generation projects will not change the availability of mineral resources at sites. XII. NOISE -- Would the project: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground -borne Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ® ❑ ® ❑ 13 vibration or ground -borne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the proj ect? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the ❑ ❑ ❑ N project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: As stated in the Noise Element in the City's General Plan, the City consists almost exclusively of industrial uses and policy set forth in the Housing Element prohibits the construction of any new housing in recognition of the high noise levels associated with widespread industrial activity. The General Plan discourages any new noise -sensitive use that would be incompatible with the City's industrial focus. Zoning regulations also prohibit community facilities such as schools, day care centers, and hospitals. Construction and operations of 1MW solar power generating projects would not result in permanent noise or vibration exposures that would be inconsistent with City policy or result in health impacts. Though noise levels would increase during construction, any increases would be short-term and are not expected to be at a level that would be inconsistent with City policy or result in health impacts. No public or private airports/airstrips are in or near the City. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in noise/vibration impacts as these types of projects could not be built. XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated ❑ ❑ ❑ N b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ N construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: Modifying the City Zoning Ordinance to allow 1 MW solar power generating projects would not result in impacts to population and housing. Changes in land use or population density are not expected. Displacement of people or housing is not expected during construction. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in population and housing impacts as these types of projects could not be built. XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated 14 a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ N Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ N Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ N Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ N Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ N Comments: Allowing 1 MW solar power projects without a CUP would not cause substantial adverse physical impacts requiring changes to fire, police, schools, parks or other public services facilities. Eliminating the allowance of other distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in Public Services impacts as these types of projects could not be built. XV. RECREATION -- Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and ❑ ❑ ❑ regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ N construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: As a highly developed industrial city, expanses of open space are not needed or present in the City for recreational purposes. The open spaces that exist are limited to privately -owned landscaping around buildings, utility easements, rail yards, and the Los Angeles River (Vernon 2009). Allowing 1MW solar power projects without a CUP would not cause increase use ofparks or recreational facilities in and around the City. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in impacts to recreation as these types of projects could not be built. XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC --Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non -motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Potentially Less Than Significant Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact ■ Q b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, ❑ ❑ N ❑ including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel 15 demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ ❑ ❑ increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ N curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ N f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public ❑ ❑ ❑ transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Comments: Allowing IMW solar power projects without a CUP would not cause substantial adverse physical impacts to traffic/transportation. Though traffic would increase during construction, the level of increase expected would be similar to other renovation and remodeling projects, and less traffic than expected from constructing a new or replacement building on a City parcel. These types of projects are commonly done in the City with no adverse impacts to traffic, even without traffic control plans. Construction of I MW solar power projects would not change air traffic patterns, create hazards by changing road geometry or use and is not expected to interfere with emergency access. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in transportation/traffic impacts as these types of projects could not be built. XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the Potentially Less Than Less Than No project: Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable ❑ ❑ ❑ N Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ N treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider ❑ ❑ ❑ N which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ N ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations ❑ ❑ ❑ N related to solid waste? Comments: Allowing 1 MW solar power projects without a CUP would not cause substantial adverse physical impacts to utilities and service systems. These projects could actually provide a benefit to existing power generating facilities in the region by reducing the load on these existing facilities. The 1MW solar power projects would not generate wastewater that would require treatment, and no new water, storm water 16 or wastewater treatment facilities would be required for these projects. The projects would require water for periodic panel cleaning, but no new or expanded water entitlements are expected. Only minor quantities of waste would be generated during construction and solid waste is not expected to be generated during operations. At decommissioning, most of the material is expected to be recycled. Based on the information in the Los Angeles County Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, in -county and out -of -county landfills that service the region have sufficient capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in utility and service system impacts as these types of projects could not be built. XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation Incorporated a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 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)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: Allowing 1 MW solar power projects without a CUP would not have direct impacts or contribute to cumulative impacts related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, hazards & hazardous materials, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services and recreation. The construction and decommissioning activities associated with 1MW solar power projects could have negligible to minor cumulative impacts related to air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, transportation/traffic and utilities/service systems. However, if the 1MW solar projects replace fossil -fuel generated power in the region, these projects could result in a cumulative benefit in each of these areas. Eliminating the allowance of other types of distributed generation projects with a CUP would not result in cumulative impacts as these types of projects could not be built. Note: Authority cited: California Department of Conservation (DOC). 2015. Regional Geology Hazards and Mapping Program. Available at: http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmgps/WH/regulatoEymgps.htm (accessed January 19, 2015). National Park Service (NPS). 2015. National Register of Historic Places Program: Research. Available at: http://www.nps.gov/nr/research/ (accessed January 19, 2015). Vernon, City of. 2009 (as amended). City of Vernon General Plan, Resources Element. Available at: http://www.citvofvernon.or images/community-services/Zoning/Resources Element 170 KB.pdf (accessed January 19, 2015). 17