Laserfiche WebLink
5) Eadier-analyses.may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR,-or other QEQA process, an <br />effect .-has. been .adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR 'or negative declaration. Section <br />95063(b)(3)(D). Pn this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: <br />a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review'. <br />b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. *Identify which effects from the above checklist were within <br />the scope of and'adequateiy analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal <br />standards, and state whether such effects were'addressed by mitigation measures based on <br />the earlier'analysis. <br />c) " MitigatiOh . Measures. For • effects` that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures <br />Incorporated," de'scribe•the' mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the <br />earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. <br />6) Lead agencies ate encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for <br />potential impacts"(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or <br />outside document should',:where appropriate, include a reference to the page or IiOges where the <br />statement its substantiated., <br />7) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other, sources used or <br />individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. <br />8) This is. -only a ; gggested:form, ani lead,agencies are free to use different format; however, lead <br />agencies should5normally: -address- the-, questions from this 'checklist that are relevant to a project's <br />environmental effects in whatever format is. selected. <br />9.) The explanatiorl..of•each issue should.identify: <br />a)' the signiOcance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; arid <br />b) the mitigation measure identified; -.if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. <br />- Potentially <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />El <br />El <br />Less Than <br />Significant <br />With Less Than <br />Mitigation Significant No <br />Incorporated Impact Impact <br />❑ <br />❑ X <br />❑ <br />Issues: <br />❑ X <br />I. AESTHETICS. Would the:project:. <br />a) <br />Have#substantial adverse <br />effect on a scenic vista? <br />b) J. <br />Substantially damage scenic ...: <br />resources, including, but not <br />liimited.,. , trees, tock. <br />:outcropAings, and historic <br />,J; <br />:buildirrgs withirt.a.state scenic <br />highway? <br />C) <br />Substantially degrade the <br />existift-visual character or <br />qualityof•the site and its <br />.purroUtidings?, ' <br />d) <br />Create a new source of <br />substantial light or glare which <br />would adversely affect day or <br />nighttime views in the area? <br />- Potentially <br />Significant <br />Impact <br />El <br />El <br />Less Than <br />Significant <br />With Less Than <br />Mitigation Significant No <br />Incorporated Impact Impact <br />❑ <br />❑ X <br />❑ <br />❑ X <br />❑ ❑ X <br />❑ X ❑ <br />