Laserfiche WebLink
5) Earlier analyses. iay be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an <br /> effect .has.. beer adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section <br /> 15063(c)(3)(D). iii 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'adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal <br /> standard's,. and state whether such effects were*addressed by mitigation measures based on <br /> the earliet"analysis. <br /> c) Mitigation.Measures. For'effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures <br /> Incorporated,'° describe 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 are 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 documeit't should, 'where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the <br /> statement'is 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 suggested form, ani lead,.agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead <br /> agencies should;normally:,address the-,questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's <br /> environmental efl,acts in whatever Wmat is selected. <br /> 9.) The explanatiorl•.of each issue should.identify: <br /> a) the sign$cance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and <br /> b) the mitigation measure identifiedilf any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. <br /> Less Than <br /> Significant <br /> Potentially With Less Than <br /> Significant Mitigation Significant No <br /> Issues: Impact Incorporated Impact Impact <br /> I. AESTHETICS. Would the:prcject:. ° <br /> a) Have a: adverseE] El El X <br /> effect on a scenic vista? <br /> b) Substantially damage scenic .. ® F1 [] X <br /> resources, including, but not <br /> 4imitesl to, trees, rock. <br /> outcr,oppings, and historic <br /> -buildings within a state scenic <br /> highway? <br /> C) Substantially degrade the ❑ El X <br /> existin 'visual-character or <br /> quality of the site and its <br /> surropt)dings?.. <br /> d) Create a new source of X (] <br /> substantial light or glare which <br /> would adversely affect day or <br /> nighttirne views in the area? <br />