Laserfiche WebLink
I. Introduction <br /> Within each impact section in Chapter III of this EIR,impacts are identified in bold type. • <br /> Following the discussion of each stated impact,feasible measures that could alleviate the impact, / <br /> or lessen it to some degree,are set forth where warranted. Unless the impact is thereafter <br /> designated as an unavoidable significant impact,the City of Stockton has concluded that the <br /> impact can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Wherever the implementation of mitigation <br /> measores has the potential to generate significant impacts,this possibility is also noted and the <br /> significance of those potential impacts is evaluated. <br /> Alterna fives <br /> The discussion of project alternatives includes a no project alternative,an off-site alternative,a <br /> current-footprint-with-increased-elevation alternative,and a current-footprint-with-incmased- <br /> elevation-and-creek- ignment-to-the-south alternative(please refer to Chapter V of this EIR). <br /> The evaluation focuses on alternatives that may be capable of eliminating significant adverse <br /> environmental effects of the project,or reducing them to a level of insignificance,even if the <br /> alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be <br /> more costly. Effects of the alternatives are identified and compared to project impacts. <br /> REFERENCES-Introduction <br /> R.W.Beck,Final Design Study Report for the Austin Road L4wdfill Expansion,June 1993. <br /> Miller,Mike,Solid Waste Manager,City of Stockton,Department of Public Works, <br /> correspondence,March 17, 1993. <br /> Martin,Chandler,Planner,San Joaquin County Planning Department,telephone conversation, <br /> March 26,1993. <br /> San Joaquin County,Department of Public Works, 1992 Waste Quantity Report,May 1993. <br /> I.10 <br />