Ruby Maldonado Project Manager, Planning, OC Development Services

Transcription

1 DATE: January 7, 2016 TO: FROM: Ruby Maldonado Project Manager, Planning, OC Development Services Chris Uzo-Diribe, Planning, OC Development Services SUBJECT: IP Addendum IP to Negative Declaration IP Zoning Code Amendment CA Landscape Irrigation Code and Guidelines PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed Zoning Code Amendment CA will update the County of Orange Landscape Irrigation Code to ensure its mandated compliance with the 2015 statewide Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) approved by California Department of Water Resources. The County will follow the OC Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) developed by a consortium of stakeholders for use by Orange County jurisdictions. The most significant changes to the Landscape Irrigation Code include: 1. Increased water savings for new construction through: More efficient irrigation systems Limiting the turf/grass area On-site stormwater capture Use of greywater 2. Reduction of square footage thresholds that trigger compliance 3. Expansion of Evapotranspiration Table from three locations in Orange County to one for each city 4. Addition of a Prescriptive Compliance Option, more of a check list approach, to simplify compliance for smaller projects 5. Prohibition of turf/grass in street medians and parkways 6. Clarified and expanded definitions of technical terms used in the Model Ordinance and Guidelines. 7. A simplified Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet to calculate the Estimated Total Water Use and Maximum Applied Water Allowance. 8. Annual implementation and compliance reporting to the Department of Water Resources. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed action will affect the unincorporated areas of Orange County. CEQA DETERMINATION: The CEQA review of the subject project has been completed by OC Development Services. Based upon its review, OC Development Services has determined that Page 1 of 50

2 Page 2 of 50

3 ATTACHMENT 1 FILING CEQA DOCUMENTS WITH THE COUNTY CLERK Your Section will be responsible for filing the CEQA documentation and paying its related $50.00 filing fee with the County Clerk for your project. The County Clerk now only needs your CEQA document(s) with your project charge number in the upper right corner in order to post the document and recover this fee. You must, however, obtain a fee receipt from the County Clerk, which must then be turned in immediately to OC Development Services. The County Clerk requires the $50.00 documentary handling fee for the following items: * Notices of Determinations (NOD); and * Notices of Exemption (NOE) Please note the following: 1. Within 5 days of Project approval by the Board, Planning Commission, Zoning Administrator, Subdivision Committee or Director of OC Development Services, a Notice of Determination (NOD) must be filed with the County Clerk. 2. If the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) has determined that the Project is exempt from the Fish and Game fees, a No Effect Determination (Certificate of Fee Exemption) will be provided to you by CDFW and must accompany your project's NOD. If CDFG cannot find your project exempt from the CDFW fees and has no record of the fee payment, the Applicant will be required to pay $3, for the EIR and $2, for MND/ND, including the $50.00 handling fee. You will need to fill in the remaining information on the NOD form and get an original authorizing signature from your section after the approval action on your project. You will need to take the original set, and at least one set of copies to the EIR Clerk located in the Recorders/Clerks Office, Building 12, Civic Center Plaza. The Clerk will stamp the NOD and keep the original set. The Clerk will issue a receipt for the environmental document, which must be returned to OC Development Services. A copy of a stamped NOD must be placed in the OC Development Services project file. Page 3 of 50

4 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED CEQA STATEMENT ACTION AND FINDINGS FOR STAFF REPORTS/ASRs A. CEQA COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (FOR TEXT OF STAFF REPORT/ASR): The CEQA compliance statement, located in the text of the staff report or body of the ASR under "Additional Data", shall include the following statement unless advised otherwise by County Counsel or the Manager, OC Development Services: The circumstances of this project are substantially the same as Final ND IP but changes or additions are necessary as set forth in Addendum No. IP , which adequately address the effects of the proposed Project. No substantial changes have been made in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance to the Project which was not known or could not have been known when Final ND IP was adopted, or through the date of approval of the Addendum IP has become known; therefore no further environmental review is required. B. RECOMMENDED ACTION STATEMENT FOR APPROVING PROJECT: State law requires that action on a CEQA document be taken by the decision-maker prior to approval of the project for which it has been prepared. The following action must be taken before action on the project, unless directed otherwise by County Counsel or the Manager, OC Development Services: 1. Find that Final ND IP 90-40, previously adopted by the Board of Supervisors on 10/24/90 reflects the independent judgment of the County of Orange. 2. Find that the circumstances of the project are substantially the same and Final ND IP and Addendum IP adequately address the effects of the proposed Project. No substantial changes have been made in the Project, no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance to the Project which was not known or could not have been known when Final ND IP was adopted has become known; therefore no further environmental review is required. C. FISH AND GAME CODE FINDING FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT: Find that pursuant to Section of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, this project is not subject to the required fees as it has been determined that no potential adverse impacts to wildlife resources may result from the project. D. NCCP FINDING FOR APPROVAL OF PROJECT: Find that the project does not have the potential to adversely affect significant Coastal Sage Scrub habitat or preclude the ability to implement an effective Subregional Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) Program. Page 4 of 50

5 ADDENDUM IP TO NEGATIVE DECLARATION IP FOR ZONING CODE AMENDMENT CA UPDATE TO LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION CODE AND GUIDELINES PROJECT BACKGROUND: On October 24, 1990, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 3802, the County of Orange Water Conservation Implementation Program which established landscape irrigation requirements in the unincorporated areas of Orange County. These requirements were updated when the Board adopted Ordinance No on December 15, 2009 to comply with the statewide Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). This action also renamed this section of the Zoning Code the County of Orange Landscape Irrigation Code. The goal of the MWELO was to promote efficient landscapes and water usage in new developments and retrofitted landscapes. At that time, local jurisdictions had the option to: 1) adopt the statewide MWELO verbatim, 2) adopt its own MWELO which was required to be as effective as the statewide MWELO, or 3) participate in an effort to develop a regional MWELO that would then be adopted by participating jurisdictions. The County elected to incorporate the countywide MWELO developed by a consortium of Orange County stakeholders. Along with the ordinance, the County adopted a Guidelines document that has assisted with the implementation of these requirements. The County has been successfully implementing its Landscape Irrigation Code and Guidelines since that time. On April 1, 2015, Governor Brown signed an Executive Order that directed the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) to uses an expedited process to update the State s MWELO as part of his Drought Executive Order (see Attachment 2). The 2015 update was approved by the California Water Commission on July 15, The DWR estimates that compliance with the 2015 ordinance will cut water use on a typical landscape by at least 20%. As in 2009, the County has the option to adopt the state s model, develop its own or participate in an effort to develop a regional model. The County has elected to again participate in the countywide regional effort. In July 2015, the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC) and the Association of California Cities Orange County (ACC-OC) formed a committee to develop an Orange County MWELO that would comply with the new statewide model and which could be adopted by Orange County jurisdictions. Development of the countywide model was also expedited and was completed in October Jurisdictions participating in a regional effort, such as the Orange County model, are required to adopt their MWELO no later than February 1, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The following is a list of proposed action of the most significant changes in the 2015 statewide MWELO: 1. Increased water savings for new construction through: More efficient irrigation systems Limiting the turf/grass area Page 5 of 50

6 On-site stormwater capture Use of greywater 2. Reduction of square footage thresholds that trigger compliance 3. Expansion of Evapotranspiration Table from three locations in Orange County to one for each city 4. Addition of a Prescriptive Compliance Option, more of a check list approach, to simplify compliance for smaller projects 5. Prohibition of turf/grass in street medians and parkways 6. Clarified and expanded definitions of technical terms used in the Model Ordinance and Guidelines. 7. A simplified Water Efficient Landscape Worksheet to calculate the Estimated Total Water Use and Maximum Applied Water Allowance. 8. Annual implementation and compliance reporting to the Department of Water Resources. PROJECT LOCATION: The proposed action will affect the unincorporated areas of Orange County. ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION AND PROJECT APPROVAL: Pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines, an addendum to an approved Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. The Environmental Assessment indicates that none of the above conditions described in Section have been met. Therefore, preparation of an Addendum is appropriate. ANALYSIS: The proposed Zoning Code Amendment CA will modify the current County of Orange Landscape Irrigation Code to meet the mandatory requirements set forth in the 2015 statewide Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). In Orange County, a consortium of stakeholders developed the OC MWELO which is intended for use by local jurisdictions to ensure compliance with state regulations. The County of Orange has elected to follow the model of the OC MWELO. The following is the analysis of the subject proposal and the compilation of pertinent mitigation measures/conditions derived from County's Zoning Code, and the County's Standard Conditions of Approval. These Mitigation measures/conditions have been updated to reflect the latest requirements of CEQA in addition to County ordinances, policies and guidelines. Page 6 of 50

7 Page 7 of 50

8 CEQA CHECKLIST ANALYSIS/MITIGATION ISSUES: Potential Significan t Impact Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated Less than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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? ANALYSIS: There is no construction associated with the project that would bring about any aesthetically offensive site. No significant impact is anticipated from the proposed code amendment. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an 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 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 Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Page 8 of 50

9 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 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 nonagricultural use or conversion forest land to non-forest use? ANALYSIS: There is no farmland conversion involved with the proposed project, either as a prime, unique or statewide importance. The scope of the project is such that its location or nature would not involve other changes in the existing environment that could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: 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 nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing Page 9 of 50

10 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? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment would not contribute to air emissions, deteriorate air quality, create objectionable odors, cause a change in air movement, moisture or temperature either locally or regionally, or elevate levels of air pollution beyond South Coast Air Quality Management Plan forecasts. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, 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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. 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 Page 10 of 50

11 sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ANALYSIS: The project would not bring about any change in the diversity of species, change or deterioration of flora and fauna habitat, change in the number of any species of plants or animals, reduction of the numbers of any unique, aesthetically significant, rare or endangered species of plants or animals. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment would not impact any historical resources on site. The nature of the project precludes the potential for such impacts. No significant impact is anticipated from the project. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the Project: a. Expose people or structures to Page 11 of 50

12 potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 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 system where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? ANALYSIS: There will be no impact on landform alteration, seismic fault and unstable earth conditions anticipated from the proposed project. The project is a policy issue and no construction is anticipated. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Would the project: Page 12 of 50

13 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? ANALYSIS: There is no construction associated with the project that would bring about any Greenhouse Gas emission site, but instead improve on the water usage and indirectly improve the gas emission. No significant impact is anticipated from the proposed code amendment. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety Page 13 of 50

14 hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f. For a project within the vicinity of 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? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment will not create a hazard to the public or to the environment due to its nature. There are no known public health and safety hazards associated with this proposal. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Would the project: 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 lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of the pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Page 14 of 50

15 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 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? ANALYSIS: The project is not expected to affect absorption rates, drainage patterns, erosion, but will reduce the rate and amount of surface water run-off because of the nature of the amendment, moreover, no grading or construction is expected to occur. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, LAND USE & PLANNING Would the project: a. Physically divide an established community? b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an Page 15 of 50

16 agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance Amendment will not significantly impact the County of Orange's General Plan or the Zoning Code. The project's implementation will have changes to some sections of the County of Orange Landscape Irrigation Ordinance but will still be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning Code and all the other codes of the County of Orange. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, MINERAL RESOURCES Would the Project: a. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment would not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy, and it would not increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy, since no construction or any entitlement will be conveyed by the proposed ordinance amendment. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 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? Page 16 of 50

17 b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne 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 project? e. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such 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 project expose people residing or working the project area to excessive noise levels? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment is not expected to increase existing noise levels due to the fact that there is no construction involved. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, POPULATION & 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)? b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Page 17 of 50

18 ANALYSIS: There are no population and housing concerns associated with the proposed project The proposed amendment will not result in a situation where population would cumulatively exceed adopted regional or local population projection, neither will it induce substantial growth in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure or displace existing housing. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, PUBLIC SERVICE Would the project: 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: i. Fire protection? ii. Police protection? iii. Schools? iv. Parks? v. Other public facilities? ANALYSIS: The project would not significantly impact the need for or the usage of any public services or utilities. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, RECREATION Would the project: 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 Page 18 of 50

19 facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ANALYSIS: The proposed code amendment would not have any impact on the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities. No impacts are anticipated upon project implementation. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, 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? b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standard and travel 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 results in substantial safety risks? d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e. Result in inadequate emergency access? f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, Page 19 of 50

20 bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment would not generate any additional vehicular movement beyond regional analysis or affect the existing parking facilities or create demand for new parking facilities. Neither would it alter present patterns of circulation or movement of people due to its nature. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 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 would 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 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 accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Page 20 of 50

21 g. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ANALYSIS: The proposed ordinance amendment is not expected to impact any public services or increase the possibility of power or natural gas to the existing environment. The subject proposal is within the scope of Negative Declaration IP that was prepared, and adopted for Landscape Irrigation Ordinance on October 24, 1990 and amended on December 31, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 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 project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Page 21 of 50

22 FINDINGS: 1. The project would not have significant impacts on fish or wildlife habitat or communities, rare or endangered species or any periods of California history. 2. Due to the nature of the project, no impacts that are individually limited or known effects from other projects that would result in significant cumulative impacts. 3. The project would not have any adverse effects on human beings. The mitigation measures described above would reduce the adverse effects below the level of significance. Negative Declaration IP together with this Addendum IP satisfy the requirements of CEQA Page 22 of 50

23 Page 23 of 50

24 Page 24 of 50

25 Page 25 of 50

26 Page 26 of 50

27 Page 27 of 50

28 Page 28 of 50

29 Page 29 of 50

30 Page 30 of 50

31 Page 31 of 50

32 Page 32 of 50

33 Page 33 of 50

34 Page 34 of 50

35 Page 35 of 50

36 Page 36 of 50

37 Page 37 of 50

38 Page 38 of 50

39 Page 39 of 50

40 Page 40 of 50

41 Page 41 of 50

42 Page 42 of 50

43 Page 43 of 50

44 Page 44 of 50

45 Page 45 of 50

46 Page 46 of 50

47 Page 47 of 50

48 Page 48 of 50

49 Page 49 of 50

50 Page 50 of 50