Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 03-123RESOLUTION NO. 03-123 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FINAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS ADEQUATE FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16527 AND FINDING ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION MEASURES HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: That Tentative Tract Map 16527 is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared and distributed for public review from September 23, 2003 through October 13, 2003. The City Council of the City of Tustin has considered evidence presented by the Community Development Director and other interested parties with respect to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Council has evaluated the proposed Final Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to recommending action on the project. II. A Final Mitigated Negative Declaration, attached hereto as Exhibit A, has been completed in compliance with CEQA and State guidelines. The City Council received and considered the information contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to recommending approval of Tentative Tract Map 16527 and found that it adequately discusses the environmental effects of the proposed project. On the basis of the initial study and comments received during the public hearing process, the City Council finds that there will not be a significant effect as a result of the project. Further, the City Council finds the project involves no potential for any adverse effects, whether individually or cumulatively, on wildlife resources and, therefore, makes a De Minimis Impact finding related to the California State Department Fish and Game Code Section 711.4. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on October 20, 2003. T ACY~~W LS WORLEY Mayor PAMELA STOKER City Clerk Resolution No. 03-123 Page 1 of 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS CITY OF TUSTIN ) PAMELA STOKER, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is 5; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 03-123 was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the 20th day of October, 2003. COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Kawashima, COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: Worley Bone, Davert, Thomas (4) (0) (0) (1) City Clerk Resolution No. 03-123 Page 2 of 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 CentenniM Way, Tustin, C.4 92780 (714) 573-3100 NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Title: Project Location: Project Description: Design Review (DR) 03-015 and Tentative Tract Map 16527 1123 Warner Avenue, Tustin, County of Orange A request by the Voit Development Company to construct the "Tustin Gateway Business Park", consisting of nineteen (19) new industrial buildings on the remaining vacant 14.9 acres of the former Steelcase property at the northeast comer of Warner Avenue and Pullman Avenue. The buildings will range from approximately 3,800 to 37,000 square feet in size. The application also includes Tentative Tract Map 16527 to subdivide Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 2002-237 into seven (7) parcels, one (1) of which will contain thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19) buildings offering future owners fee title to the hnd underneath the building and an undivided interest in thc common area (parking lots, drive areas, and landscape areas); the remaining six (6) buildings will be located on fee simple lots. Project Proponent: City of Tustha, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Matt West Telephone: (714) 573-3118 The Community Developmem Department has conducted an Initial Study for the above project in accordance with the City of Tustia's procedures regarding implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: That there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. That potential significant effects were identified, but revisions have been included in the project plans and agreed to by the applicant that would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. Said Mitigation Measures are included in Attachment A of the Initial Study which is attached hereto and incorporated herein. Therefore, the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is not required. The Initial Study which provides the basis for this determination is attached and is on file at the Community Developmem Department, City of Tustin. The public is invked to comment on the appropriateness of this Negative Declaration during the review period, which begins with the public notice of Negative Declaration and extends for twenty (20) calendar days. Upon review by the Community Development Director, this review period may be extended if deemed necessary. REVIEW PERIOD ENDS AT 4:00 P.M. ON OCTOBER 13, 2003. Date September 23, 2003 ~_..~~~ Elizabeth A. Binsack Community Development Director Resolution No. 03-123 Page 3 of 14 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 300 Centennial Way, T#stin, CA 92780 (714) 573-3100 INITIAL STUDY A. BACKGROUND Project Title: Lead Agency: Tustin Gateway Business Park City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, California 92780 Lead Agency Contact Person: Matt West Phone: 714/573-3118 Project Location: 1123 Warner Avenue Project Sponsor's Name and Address: General PIan Designation: Zoning Designation: Voit Development Company 26 Corporate Plaza, Suite 260 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Industrial Planned Community Industrial (PC-IND) Project Description: A request to construct the "Tustin Gateway Business Park", consisting of nineteen (19) new industrial buildings on the remaining vacant 14.9 acres of the former Steelcase property. The buildings will range from approximately 3,800 to 37,000 square feet in s/ze. The application also includes Tentative Tmet Map 16527 to subdivide Parcel 2 of Parcel Map 2002.237 into seven (7) parcels, one' (1) of which will contain thirteen (13) of the nineteen (19) buildings offering future owners fee title to the land underneath the building and an undivided interest in the common axea (parking lots, drive areas, and landscape areas); the remaining six (6) buildings will be located on fee simple lots. Surromading Uses: North: Industrial/Warehouse South: Industrial/Warehouse East: Industrial/Warehouse West: Industrial/Warehouse Other public agencies whose approval is required: [] Orange County Fire Authority [~ City oflrvme [] Orange County Health Care Agency [] City of Santa gna [] South Coast Air Quality Management [] Orange County District EMA Other: Resolution No. 03-123 Page 4 of 14 B. ENVIRON]FrENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The envimnmenlal 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 checldist in Section D below. [] Aesthetics [] Cultural Resources [] Hazards & Hazardous Materials [~ Land Use/Planning ~ Noise [] Public Services [] Transportation~fraffic [] Mandatory Findings of Significance [-] Agriculture Resources [-] Biological Resources [] Geology/Soils [~ Hydrology/Water Quality [] Mineral Resources ~-] Population/Housing [] Recreation ~'] Utilities/Service Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis ofthis 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 although the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact" or '¥otentially significant unless mitigated impact" on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earFzer document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described in the 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 Co) have been avoided or mitigated purs~ant to that earlier ElK OP, NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon thc proposed project, and no further documentation is required. Elizabeth Binsack Community Development Director Resolution No. 03-123 Page 5 of 14 l) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) Directions A brief explanation is required for all answers except '~qo Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the info,n,ation~soumes a lead agency cite~ m thc parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately Supported ff the refcmaccd information sources show that the impact simply docs not apply to projects like the one involved (c.g., the project falls outside a fault rapture zone). A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors and general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take into account the whole action involved, including off-site, on-site, cumulative project level, indirect, direct, construction, and operational impacts. Once the lead agency has detc~ mined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist ~.nswers must indicate whether the fi~q)act 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 Lx,~,act" entries when the determination is made, and EIR is required. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect fi-om "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 Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross- referenced). 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 EIK or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)(1)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) b) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed m an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. 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. 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. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attachcd, and other sources used or individuals contacted should bc cited in the discussion. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatcver format is sclec:~ed. 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. Resolution No. 03-123 Page 6 of 14 D. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS I. AESTHETICS- Would the project: Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not FtmRe. d to, ~rces, ro~k Outcroppings, and historic build'tags within a state scenic highway? c) Substa~*ial!y degtadc the existing visual character or quality of the site and ~ts surroundings? d) Create a new sourc~ of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affec~ day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In det~i-winl-g whc~r im!2scts to agricultural z~ources are silpfificant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricuhuml Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepare~l by the California D~t. of Conservation as an optio-al model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would th~ project: a) Convm't Prin~ Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Fm'mlaad of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pllrsuant to file Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricolmral use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing cnvironmen~ wMch, due to their location or natme, could iesult in conv~sion of Farmland, to non.agricultural use? IH. AIR OUALITY: Where available, th~ significance criteria eatablished by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may b~ rehe. d upon to make thc 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 non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissiom, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone prec~sors)? d) Expose seusitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrat/on~? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number o.r~eo~le? Potentially Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] [] Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Significant Impact [] [] No Impact [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] Resolution No. 03-123 Page 7 of 14 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESQURCES: - Would the project: a) Have a substaniialadvenc effect, either directly or throug~ habitat modlfi ,catiom, on any species identified as a candidate, scmkive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by ~he California Department offish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive ~amral community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. l~ish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial'advezse 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 llle~n? d) &terfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migrat0py fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of natiVe wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resouxces, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Comcrvation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation Less Than Significant Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: - Would thc project a) Came a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource am defined in § 15064.5? b) Came a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleoutological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, includiugthose interred outside of formal cemet~rics? VI, GEOLOGY AND SOILS: - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including thc risk o£loss, injury, or death involving: [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] 0 [] [] Resolution No. 03-123 Page 8 of 14 i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, az delineated on the most ~ecent Alqui~-Priolo Ear~uake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the ar~a or based on other substantial evidence of a kmowa fault? Refer to Division of Min~s and G~ology gl~ecial Publication 42. ii) gtrong seismic gra.n,4 shak~g? iii) Seismic-related g~otmd failure, including liquefaction7 iv) LandsliPs? b) Result in substant~l soil ~osion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would becom~ um~able as a result of the project, and potentiully result m on- or off-sfle laudslide, lateral spreading, · subsidenoe, liq~tefaetion or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the U~iform Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property7 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? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to thc public or the enVn'Onment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environraent through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the releas~ of hazardous materials into thc cnvitommnt? c) Emit ha~azdolls enfi~sions or handle hazardou~ or acutely hazaxdous materi~ls, subst~ucas, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a hst of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ,Section 65962.$ and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to th~ public or the environment? c) For a projcct located within an airport land ase plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the projcct r~mlt in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airsu'ip, would the project result in a safely hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Potentially Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] Legs T~a~ Significant With Mitigation lnco~iooration [] [] [] [] [] Significant Impact [] [] [] [] [] No Impact [] [] [] [] [] Resolution No. 03-123 Page 9 of 14 g) /repair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or slxuctures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death mvolviag wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are mterr~xed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY: - 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 volme or a lowering of thc local groondwater 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 planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or ama, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would r~sult in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site7 d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through thc alteration of thc course of a stream or fiver, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a numucr, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed thc capacily of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise subs~amially degrade water quality? g) Place housing wRhin a lO0-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Imurance Rate Map or other flood ~*~,~d delineation map? h) Place within a lO0-ycar flood hazud arcs structures which would impcde or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding as a result oftl~ failure ora levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tstmami, or mudflow? k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? Potentially Significant . Impact D [] [] Less Than Significant With Mttigatwn Incorporation [2 Less Than Significant Impact No £mpact Resolution No. 03-123 Page 10 of 14 1) Potentially impact'stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? m) Kesult in a potential for discEarge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste haudlfiag, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas, loading docks or other outdoor work u:eas? n) Kesult in a potential for discharge of stormwatcr to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? o) Create the potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of atormwater ranoffto cause environmental harm? p) Create significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the project: a) Physically divide an established co ...... unity? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of au agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zonin~ orally, ncc) udopt~d for thc puxpose of avoiding or mil/gat/ag aa environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in thc loss of availability o£a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of thc state? b) R~sult in the loss of availability cfa locally important na~eral resource recovery site delineated on a local g~neral plan, specific plan olr other land use plan? XI. NOISE- Would the project result in: 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 groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact [] [] Significant Mit~'gation Incorporation [] [] Less Than Significant fmpact No Impact Resolution No. 03-123 Page 11 of 14 c) A substantial pem~anent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?. d) A substarttial tem?orary or periodic increase ia ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levcls existing without the project? e) For a project localed within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public ahpon or public use airport, would the project expose people resicliag m wetting in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose p~oplc residing or working in thc proj e~zt area to excess noise levcls? XII.POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substa~tla! population growth in an arca, either directly (for enampl¢, by proposing new homes and businesses) et indirectly (for example, through cxteusion of roads or other i-frasU'uctut¢)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homing, necessitating the consla-uction of r,placement hotmin§ elsewhere? c) Displace substantial humblers ofpeoplc, ncccssitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PLrBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical i,,q, acts associated wifla the provision of new or physically altered §ovemmcntal facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the consUuction of which could cauze significant environmental impacts, in order to mainlain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools.9 Parks? Other public facilities? Potentially Significant Impact [] 0 [] [] [] Le~s Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation 0 [] [] [] [] [] [] Less Than Significant Impact [] [] 0 [] [] [] [] No Impact Resolution No. 03-123 Page 12 of 14 XIV. RECREATION- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regiqnal parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur o~ be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which night have an adverse physical effect on the environment?. tV. TRANSPORTATiON/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in Uaffic which is substantial m relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips; the volume to capacity ratio on roa~, or congestion m intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or ca,m,flatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion managen~nt agency for designated roads or highways? c) Kesult in a change in a/r traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location tl~t results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design featm'e (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ~cccss? Rcsult in inadequate parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or progr-,maz ;upporting alternative ~'an~orta~ion (e.g., bus turnouts, oicyclc racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wnstewat~ treatment rccluh-ements 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 could cause significant environmental effects? Potentially Significant Impact [] [] [] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] Significant Impact [] [] No Impact [] [] [] Resolution No. 03-123 Page 13 of 14 d) Have sufficient water supplles available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or a~e new or expanded entitlements, needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treaunent provider which serves.or may s~rve the project that ii has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand addition to the provider's existing co~amltments? f') Be served by a la~lftll with sufficient permiiied capacity to accommodate the project's solid wast~ disposal needs? g) Coaxply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVIL 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, ~hreaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or allimM or eliminate im?ortant examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, bur cumulatively considerable? C'Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project arc considerable when'viewed in co~mection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other curreni projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have enviromental eff~ts, which will cause substantial advel'se effects on human beings, either directly or indirecflf Potentially Significant Impact [] [] [] Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation [] [] [] Less Than Significant · Impact [3 [] [] [] Nolmpact Resolution No. 03-123 Page 14 of 14