Laserfiche WebLink
POTENTIALLY <br />ISSUES <br />POTENTIALLY <br />SIGNIFICANT <br />LESS THAN <br />NO <br />SIGNIFICANT <br />UNLESS <br />SIGNIFICANT <br />IMPACT <br />SOURCES <br />ISSUES <br />MITIGATION <br />IMPACT <br />INCORPORATED <br />EXPLANATION: Development potential would either be equal to, reduced from, and/or subject to additional discretionary review <br />when compared to existing regulations, as outlined in Attachment A -Project Description to this report. Project review pursuant to <br />evaluation of recreation would remain unchanged from existing City policy. <br />11. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: <br />a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic <br />X <br />2 <br />vista? <br />b. Substantially damage scenic resources, <br />including, but not limited to, trees, rock <br />X <br />2 <br />outcroppings, and historic buildings within a <br />state scenic highway? <br />C. Substantially degrade the existing visual <br />character or quality of the site and its <br />X <br />2 <br />surroundings? <br />d. Create a new source of substantial light or <br />glare which would adversely affect day or <br />X <br />2 <br />nighttime views in the area? <br />e. Create significant shadow effects on adjacent <br />X <br />2 <br />buildings? <br />EXPLANATION: Development potential would either be equal to, reduced from, and/or subject to additional discretionary review <br />when compared to existing regulations, as outlined in Attachment A -Project Description to this report. Project review pursuant to <br />evaluation of certain development applications' aesthetic impacts would be enhanced with the adoption of the proposed process for <br />"Site Plan Review." Implementation of the proposed amendments would result in increased development standards and the ability to <br />ire property upgrades (e.g., pertaining to landscaping, fencing, and screening of outdoor storage, etc.). This is a beneficial aspect <br />e project. <br />15. CULTURAL RESOURCES. ,Would theproject: <br />a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the <br />significance of a historical resource as defined <br />X <br />2 <br />in section 15064.5? <br />b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the <br />significance of an archaeological resource <br />X <br />2 <br />pursuant to section 15064.5? <br />C. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique <br />paleontological resource or site or unique <br />X <br />2 <br />geologic feature? <br />d. Disturb any human remains, including those <br />X <br />2 <br />interred outside of formal cemeteries? <br />EXPLANATION: Development potential would either be equal to, reduced from, and/or subject to additional discretionary review <br />when compared to existing regulations, as outlined in Attachment A -Project Description to this report. Project review pursuant to <br />evaluation of cultural resources would remain unchanged from existing City policy. <br />I6.:.. GRIC TUU.RESOURCES.' Would the ro'ect: <br />a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or <br />Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), <br />as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the <br />X <br />2 <br />Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of <br />the California Resources Agency, to non- <br />agricultural use? <br />Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural <br />X <br />2 <br />use, or a Williamson Act contract? <br />Zoning Code Amendments - IS/ND 10 January 2001 <br />3 <br />