My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
31A - 1715 NORTH BRISTROL ST
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2007
>
03/05/2007
>
31A - 1715 NORTH BRISTROL ST
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/3/2012 4:41:25 PM
Creation date
2/28/2007 12:21:24 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Item #
31A
Date
3/5/2007
Destruction Year
2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
64
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />mYCf~ANTA <br />ANA <br /> <br />Qj;~~~;~::{.ff:;tlt; <br /> <br />~'~~~., :-~-:~~-:-r:'-.~-r <br /> <br />E nvi ron menIal;} Il1eckl ist <br /> <br />:"?,'t:;~ _ '~:.. '~-,' ,.,,>;~~~~_>l';-.wl <br /> <br />C'r!' " CE~ Compliance <br />.~ .-, . . ',' ;:O~,l,;;"...~ <br /> <br />Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: <br /> <br />I. 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 <br />not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No <br />Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general <br />standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific <br />screening analysis). <br /> <br />II. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, <br />cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational <br />impacts. <br /> <br />III. "Potentially Significant Impacf' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If <br />there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impacf' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is <br />required. <br /> <br />IV. "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures <br />has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impacf' to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead <br />agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less <br />than significant level. <br /> <br /> Less than <br /> Significant <br /> Potentially with Less Than <br /> Significant Mitigation Significant No <br />Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact <br />I. Aesthetics - Would the project: <br /> A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 0 0 ~ <br /> B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited 0 0 0 ~ <br /> to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings <br /> within a state highway? <br /> C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character <br /> or quality of the site and its surroundings? 0 0 ~ 0 <br /> D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare <br /> which would adversely affect day or nighttime views <br /> in the area? 0 0 ~ 0 <br /> <br />31sAiII8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.