My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2017
>
AgdaPkt 2017-04-03 Joint SA PFA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/11/2017 10:44:41 AM
Creation date
3/30/2017 4:41:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
4/3/2017
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
399
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />8 <br />Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: <br />(1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the <br />information sources a lead agency cites following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the <br />referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the <br />project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project - <br />specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a <br />project-specific screening analysis). <br /> <br />(2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as <br />project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. <br /> <br />(3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must <br />indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, or less than <br />significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be <br />significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is <br />required. <br /> <br />(4) "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has <br />reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Imp act." The lead agency must <br />describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level <br />(mitigation measures from "Earlier Analysis," as explained in [5] below, may be cross-referenced). <br /> <br /> It is noted that many potential environmental impacts can be avoided or reduced through implem entation of uniformly <br />applicable development policies, standards, or regulations – such as building and fire codes, design guidelines, a noise <br />ordinance, a historic resource ordinance, a tree preservation ordinance, and other requirements that the lead agency <br />applies uniformly toward all project proposals. Consistent with CEQA streamlining provisions (e.g., Section 15183), <br />these uniformly applied requirements are not distinguished as project-specific “mitigation measures,” primarily because <br />they have already been adopted to avoid or redu ce potential environmental impacts of all future project proposals, not <br />only the particular project being evaluated at the moment. <br /> <br />(5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been <br />adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063[b][1][c]). In this case, a <br />brief discussion should identify the following: <br /> <br />(a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. <br /> <br />(b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and <br />adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects <br />were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. <br /> <br />(c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated," describe the <br />mitigation measures that were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the ext ent to which they <br />address site-specific conditions for the project. <br /> <br />(6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts <br />(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or o utside document should, where <br />appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. <br /> <br />(7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should <br />be cited in the discussion. <br /> <br />(8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should <br />normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever <br />format is selected. <br /> <br />8.A. - Page 140
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.