My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0007861
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
A
>
AUSTIN
>
9999
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-0800105
>
SU0007861
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/6/2020 11:37:03 AM
Creation date
9/4/2019 10:03:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0007861
PE
2675
FACILITY_NAME
PA-0800105
STREET_NUMBER
9999
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
AUSTIN
STREET_TYPE
RD
City
MANTECA
APN
20106003
ENTERED_DATE
8/11/2009 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
9999 S AUSTIN RD
RECEIVED_DATE
7/24/2009 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
002
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Supplemental fields
FilePath
\MIGRATIONS\A\AUSTIN\9999\EIR PA-0800105\NOP.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.
/
687
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
Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-3 <br /> Forward Inc. Landfill 2014 Expansion Project <br /> the lowest impact,because it would not result in creek relocation impacts and would not <br /> j' affect the visual quality of the Southern parcel as viewed from Austin Road. <br /> r It should be noted that the Forward Inc. landfill is the only landfill in San Joaquin <br /> County that accepts Class II wastes, and under Alternatives 4 and 5, those wastes would <br /> need to be disposed of at out-of-county landfills upon the closure of the Forward <br /> Landfill earlier than under the proposed project or Alternative 6. This could result in <br /> r� greater regional air pollutant emissions than with the project,as well as unknown <br /> impacts of expanding landfills elsewhere. Because Alternative 4 would not affect the <br /> composting facility or require creek realignment,it is considered the environmentally <br /> superior alternative. However, long-term benefits of the restored creek and additional <br /> Class 2 landfill capacity would not be gained under that alternative. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.