My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0008325
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
THORNTON
>
15300
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-1000131
>
SU0008325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/7/2020 11:33:27 AM
Creation date
9/9/2019 10:36:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0008325
PE
2626
FACILITY_NAME
PA-1000131
STREET_NUMBER
15300
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
THORNTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95240
APN
02519016 18 19
ENTERED_DATE
6/28/2010 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
15300 N THORNTON RD
RECEIVED_DATE
6/24/2010 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\APPL.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\CDD OK.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\EH COND.PDF \MIGRATIONS\T\THORNTON\15300\PA-1000131\SU0008325\BOS APPEAL.PDF
Tags
EHD - Public
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.
/
226
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
or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations <br /> have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the <br /> significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second permissible finding is <br /> that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public <br /> agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other <br /> agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.The third potential conclusion is that <br /> specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of <br /> employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or <br /> project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15091.) As explained <br /> elsewhere in these findings, "feasible" means capable of being accomplished in a successful <br /> manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, <br /> legal, and technological factors. The concept of"feasibility" also encompasses the question of <br /> whether a particular alternative or mitigation measure promotes the underlying goals and <br /> objectives of a project. (Sierra Club v. County of Napa (2004) 121 Ca1.App.4th 1490, 1506-1509 <br /> (court upholds CEQA findings rejecting alternatives in reliance on applicant's project objectives); see <br /> also California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal. App. 4th 957, 1001 <br /> (CNPS) ("an alternative `may be found infeasible on the ground it is inconsistent with the project <br /> objectives as long as the finding is supported by substantial evidence in the record"') (quoting <br /> Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the Cal Environmental Quality Act [ConLEd.Bar 2d ed. <br /> 20091 (Kostka), § 17.309, p. 825); In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report <br /> Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 CalAth 1143, 1165, 1166 (Bay-Delta) ("[iln the CALFED <br /> program, feasibility is strongly linked to achievement of each of the primary program <br /> objectives'; "a lead agency may structure its EIR alternative analysis around a reasonable <br /> definition of underlying purpose and need not study alternatives that cannot achieve that basic <br /> goal").) Moreover, "`feasibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the extent that <br /> desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, <br /> legal, and technological factors." (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d <br /> 410, 417 (City of Del Mar); see also CNPS, supra, 177 Cal. App. 4th at p. 1001 (after weighing <br /> "`economic, environmental, social, and technological factors,' ... `an agency may conclude that a <br /> mitigation measure or alternative is impractical or undesirable from a policy standpoint and <br /> reject it as infeasible on that ground") (quoting Kos"supra, § 17.29,p. 824).) <br /> For purposes of these findings (including the table described in section VII below), the term <br /> "avoid" refers to the effectiveness of one or more mitigation measures to reduce an otherwise <br /> significant effect to a less than significant level. In contrast, the term "substantially lessen"refers <br /> to the effectiveness of such measure or measures to substantially reduce the severity of a <br /> significant effect,but not to reduce that effect to a less than significant level. <br /> CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt feasible mitigation measures or, in some instances, <br /> feasible alternatives to substantially lessen or avoid significant environmental impacts that would <br /> otherwise occur. <br /> With respect to a project for which significant impacts are not avoided or substantially lessened, <br /> a public agency, after adopting proper findings, may nevertheless approve the project if the <br /> agency first adopts a statement of overriding considerations setting forth the specific reasons that <br /> the agency found the project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. <br /> Love's Travel Stops Project 9 Findings of Fact and <br /> Statement of Overriding Considerations <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.