Laserfiche WebLink
*:/ : 11-1 h WA <br />6,lA%1111L1IMkito]A:Iki1yIIkale] ►I vi1:1►IF_101 viWI«K <br />A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact' answers that are adequately supported <br />by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' <br />answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not <br />apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact' <br />answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., <br />the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project- specific screening <br />analysis. <br />2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off site as well as on site, cumulative <br />as well as project level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. <br />3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers <br />must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than <br />significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may <br />be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is <br />made, an FIR is required. <br />4. "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the <br />incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a "Less <br />Than Significant Impact" The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how <br />they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. <br />S. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, an <br />effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section I5063(c)(3)(D). In <br />this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: <br />s 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 the <br />scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and <br />state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier 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 earlier <br />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 outside <br />document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is <br />substantiated. <br />7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals <br />contacted should be cited in the discussion. <br />75C-54 <br />