My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013926
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
G
>
GRIDER
>
692
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-2100020
>
SU0013926
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/25/2021 11:11:28 AM
Creation date
3/8/2021 4:26:18 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
RECORD_ID
SU0013926
PE
2666
FACILITY_NAME
PA-2100020
STREET_NUMBER
692
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
GRIDER
STREET_TYPE
WAY
City
STOCKTON
Zip
95209-
APN
07014035, 07057013
ENTERED_DATE
2/17/2021 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
692 W GRIDER WAY
RECEIVED_DATE
3/5/2021 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
003
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\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.
/
92
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 -2100019 and PA -2100020 — Initial Study <br />Planning Commission Staff Report, PA -2100019, 20 (GP, ZR) <br />Environmental Review <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.