Laserfiche WebLink
Potentially <br /> Significant <br /> Potentially Unless Less Than <br /> Significant Mitigation Significant No <br /> Impact Incorporated Impact Impact <br /> d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> affect unique ethnic cultural values'? <br /> e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> impact area? <br /> XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal: <br /> a) Increases the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or <br /> other recreational facilities? <br /> b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. <br /> a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or <br /> wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop <br /> below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or <br /> animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of <br /> a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important <br /> examples of the major periods of California history or <br /> prehistory? <br /> b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? <br /> c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> but cumulatively considerable?("Cumulatively considerable" <br /> means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable <br /> when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, <br /> the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable <br /> future projects) <br /> d) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause ❑ ❑ ❑ <br /> substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or <br /> indirectly? <br /> 8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS <br /> 8.1 INTRODUCTION <br /> 1. This section provides substantiation to the responses in the completed Initial Study Checklist for <br /> the proposed project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, no substantiation is required for <br /> questions for which the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not <br /> apply to the project. Detailed, individual responses have been provided as deemed necessary to <br /> clarify potential impacts most relevant to the proposed project. The list of the references <br /> supporting the discussion are provided. <br /> 2. Based on the responses to the questions below,the Central Valley RegionalWater Quality Control <br /> Board, as the CEQA lead agency for the proposed action,determines whether the "project" for the <br /> Musco Olive Plant would have the potential to create a significant impact on the environment and <br /> whether additional environmental documentation is necessary. <br /> -13- <br />