My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
THORNTON
>
12751
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0528038
>
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/26/2019 9:54:09 AM
Creation date
9/26/2019 8:57:07 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
RECORD_ID
PR0528038
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0018998
FACILITY_NAME
NCPA LODI ENERGY CENTER
STREET_NUMBER
12751
Direction
N
STREET_NAME
THORNTON
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
LODI
Zip
95242
APN
05513016
CURRENT_STATUS
01
SITE_LOCATION
12751 N THORNTON RD
P_LOCATION
02
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\wng
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.
/
1626
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
SECTION 6.0:ALTERNATIVES <br /> 6.4 Comparative Evaluation of Alternative Sites <br /> In the discussion that follows, the sites are compared in terms of each of the 16 topic areas <br /> required in the AFC,as well as in terms of project development constraints. The most useful <br /> topics for comparison are as follows: <br /> • Project Development Constraints—Are there site characteristics that would prohibit or <br /> seriously constrain development, such as significant contamination problems,or lack of <br /> fuel, transmission capacity,or water? <br /> • Land Use Compatibility—Is the parcel zoned appropriately for industrial use and <br /> compatible with local land use policies? <br /> • Routing and Length of Linear Facilities—Can linear facilities be routed to the site <br /> along existing transmission lines,pipelines, and roads?Will linear facilities be <br /> significantly shorter for a given site? <br /> • Visual Resources—Are there significant differences between the sites in their potential <br /> for impact on valuable or protected viewsheds? <br /> • Biological Resources—Would there be significant impacts to wetlands or threatened or <br /> endangered species such that mitigation of these effects would be unduly expensive or <br /> constrain the supply of available mitigation resources? <br /> • Contamination—Is there significant contamination on site, such that cleanup expense <br /> would be high or such that cleanup would cause significant schedule delay? <br /> • Noise—Is the site sufficiently near a sensitive receptor area such that it would be <br /> difficult to mitigate potential noise impacts below the level of significance? <br /> • Use of Previously Disturbed Areas—Has the site been previously disturbed?Does the <br /> site minimize the need for clearing vegetation and otherwise present low potential for <br /> impact on biological and cultural resources? <br /> • Other Environmental Categories—Are there significant differences between the sites in <br /> their potential for impact in other environmental categories? <br /> There is no precise mathematical weighting system established for considering potential <br /> impacts in alternatives analyses. Some of the criteria used to compare the alternatives are <br /> more or less important to consider than others.For example, an impact that could affect <br /> public health and safety or could result in significant environmental impacts is obviously of <br /> greater concern than a purely aesthetic issue associated with an advisory design guideline. <br /> It is important in comparing alternatives to focus on the key siting advantages and the <br /> potential adverse environmental effects of a particular site. Comparing each of the <br /> environmental disciplines and giving each discipline equal weight would provide a <br /> misleading analysis because effects in one area are not necessarily equivalent in importance <br /> to effects in another area. <br /> For example, although the sites may differ in terms of available local road and street <br /> capacities and the current levels of traffic congestion,the number of workers during the <br /> SAC/371322/082330003(LEC_6.0_ALTERNATIVES.DOC) 6-7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.