My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_1993_1
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
9069
>
4400 - Solid Waste Program
>
PR0440001
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_1993_1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/17/2020 3:53:09 PM
Creation date
7/3/2020 10:39:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
4400 - Solid Waste Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
1993_1
RECORD_ID
PR0440001
PE
4433
FACILITY_ID
FA0004514
FACILITY_NAME
AUSTIN ROAD/ FORWARD LANDFILL
STREET_NUMBER
9069
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95215
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
9069 S AUSTIN RD
P_LOCATION
01
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\rtan
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\SW\SW_4433_PR0440001_9069 S AUSTIN_1993_1.tif
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.
/
428
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
S. Summary <br /> Regulations require that financial assurances be put into place at the beginning of landfill <br /> operations to fund the closure and post-closure maintenance period adequately. <br /> E. OVERVIEW OF IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES <br /> Table S.1, at the end of this chapter,presents the project's environmental impacts,the level of <br /> significance of those impacts,identified mitigation measures and the level of significance after <br /> implementation of the mitigation measures.Please refer to Chapter III,Environmental Setting, <br /> Impacts, and Mitigations for the definitions of significance and adverse. <br /> F. ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROTECT <br /> This EIR considers four alternatives to the proposed project,each of which is briefly described <br /> below. <br /> • The No-Project Alternative assumes that no landfill expansion would be constructed. <br /> Under CEQA,the EIR must address the No-Project Alternative. <br /> • The Off-Site Alternative Site would involve location of the landfill expansion at another <br /> site. This alternative location was selected to highlight site-specific impacts. This <br /> altemative is required under CEQA. <br /> • The Current-Footprint-with-Increased-Elevation Alternative would involve increasing the <br /> elevation on top of the existing footprint from the permitted height of 90 feet mean sea <br /> level (MSL)to 150 feet MSL. This alternative was selected to identify opportunities to <br /> minimize impacts of a horizontally expanded landfill at the project site. <br /> • The Current-Footprint-with-Increased-Elevation-and-Creek-Realig nment-South Alternative <br /> assumes the alternative describe above along with realigning the creek to the south of the <br /> permitted landfill (south of the existing 45 acre borrow area). <br /> The CEQA Guidelines require that an environmentally superior alternative be designated. If the <br /> alternative with the least environmental impact is the No-Project Alternative,then one of the <br /> other remaining alternatives is to be designated as the environmentally superior alternative. In <br /> Us case,the alternative with the least environmental impact is the Current-Footprint-with- <br /> Inc-reased-Elevation-and-Creek-Realignment-South Alternative. <br /> G. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY <br /> Each of the following issues is addressed in the environmental impact analyses of this EIR: the <br /> potential presence of biological resources at the site;effects of the project on air quality;effects <br /> S.5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.