My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0014092
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
P
>
POCK
>
2706
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2100061
>
SU0014092
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/21/2022 9:51:56 AM
Creation date
5/25/2021 7:58:03 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0014092
PE
2666
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2100061
STREET_NUMBER
2706
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
POCK
STREET_TYPE
LN
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95205-
APN
17912013, -11, -14
ENTERED_DATE
4/22/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
2706 S POCK LN
RECEIVED_DATE
7/6/2022 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
001
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\lsauers
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.
/
1822
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
5.0 NOTES ON EVALUATION OF <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS <br /> 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that <br /> are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the <br /> parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately <br /> supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does <br /> not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault <br /> rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on <br /> project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not <br /> expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening <br /> analysis). <br /> 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as <br /> well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and <br /> construction as well as operational impacts. <br /> 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a physical impact may occur, then the <br /> checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less <br /> than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant <br /> Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be <br /> significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when <br /> the determination is made, an EIR is required. <br /> 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" <br /> applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from <br /> "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead <br /> agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they <br /> reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from <br /> "Earlier Analyses," as described in(5) below, may be cross-referenced). <br /> 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other <br /> CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or <br /> negative declaration [CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)]. In this case, a <br /> brief discussion should identify the following: <br /> a) Earlier Analyses Used: Identify and state where they are available for <br /> review. <br /> b) Impacts Adequately Addressed: Identify which effects from the above <br /> checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier <br /> document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such <br /> effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier <br /> analysis. <br /> Pock Lane Public Review Draft IS/MND 5-1 May 2022 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.