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
5.13 VISUAL RESOURCES <br /> 1. How many residential,recreational,and traveling(motorist) viewers have views of the <br /> project? <br /> 2. Is the project site properly zoned? <br /> 3. Would a conditional use permit and/or height variance have been required from the <br /> city/county (if so what conditions would the city/county place on the power plant)? <br /> 4. Does the project conform to the clear written declarations of local/state/federal agencies <br /> to protect designated visual resources of importance or the valued aesthetic character of <br /> a neighborhood (said declaration must be clear,concise, and uncompromised by <br /> conflicting declarations, and be an official action of the governing body [City Council/ <br /> Board of Supervisors] such as a General Plan element,zoning ordinance,or design <br /> guideline)? <br /> 5. Will the project substantially alter the existing viewshed, including any changes in <br /> natural terrain? <br /> 6. Does the project substantially change the existing setting? <br /> 7. Has landscaping been proposed as part of the project? <br /> 8. Would the project create a water vapor plume that could have an adverse effect on a <br /> KOP view? <br /> The process of answering these questions includes an examination of the present views <br /> within the project viewshed in terms of aesthetics-i.e.,by examining the various aspects <br /> that together define the quality of a view-followed by an assessment of how the various <br /> aspects of the aesthetics of the view would be affected by the project,which conversely <br /> could be described as an analysis of how well the project area can absorb the various aspects <br /> of the project into the landscape. <br /> To answer the fourth CEQA Guidelines checklist question("Would the project create a new <br /> source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the <br /> area?"),the project's lighting plans are analyzed to ensure they fit with established norms <br /> for low-impact lighting designs, and then answers the following questions to determine if a <br /> potential for impact from night-lighting exists: <br /> 1. With application of standard best practices for lighting control,would light or glare be <br /> reduced to acceptable levels? <br /> 2. Will the project result in significant amounts of backscatter light into the nighttime sky? <br /> References <br /> California Energy Commission. 2004. Final Staff Assessment for the Roseville Energy Park <br /> Project-Visual Resources chapter. <br /> Smardon, R.C.,J. F. Palmer,and J. P. Felleman. 1986. Foundations for Visual Project <br /> Analysis. John Wiley&Sons,New York. <br /> 3 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.