My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013199
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
T
>
12 (STATE ROUTE 12)
>
10400
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2000023
>
SU0013199
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/19/2024 3:48:19 PM
Creation date
5/7/2020 3:39:20 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013199
PE
2620
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2000023
STREET_NUMBER
10400
Direction
E
STREET_NAME
STATE ROUTE 12
City
LODI
Zip
95240-
APN
05112088
ENTERED_DATE
4/27/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
10400 E HWY 12
RECEIVED_DATE
4/17/2020 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
004
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
TSok
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: <br /> 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the <br /> information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is <br /> adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects <br /> like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone).A"No Impact"answer should be explained <br /> where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive <br /> receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). <br /> 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well <br /> as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. <br /> 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must <br /> indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. <br /> "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If <br /> there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. <br /> 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of <br /> mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less Than Significant Impact." <br /> The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less <br /> than significant level (mitigation measures from "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- <br /> referenced). <br /> 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has <br /> been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief <br /> discussion should identify the following: <br /> a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. <br /> b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of <br /> and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and state whether <br /> such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. <br /> c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," <br /> describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the <br /> extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. <br /> 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential <br /> impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, <br /> where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. <br /> 7) Supporting Information Sources:A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted <br /> should be cited in the discussion. <br /> 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should <br /> normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever <br /> format is selected. <br /> 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: <br /> a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and <br /> b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. <br /> PA-1900243 (UP) & PA-2000023 (DA)— Initial Study 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.