My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
SU0013675_STAFF REPORT
Environmental Health - Public
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
D
>
DELTA
>
7300
>
2600 - Land Use Program
>
PA-1800316
>
SU0013675_STAFF REPORT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/13/2021 4:06:51 PM
Creation date
5/13/2021 3:51:00 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2600 - Land Use Program
File Section
COMPLIANCE INFO
FileName_PostFix
STAFF REPORT
RECORD_ID
SU0013675
PE
2625
FACILITY_NAME
PA-1800316
STREET_NUMBER
7300
Direction
W
STREET_NAME
DELTA
STREET_TYPE
AVE
City
TRACY
Zip
95304-
APN
21302038, 21302041
ENTERED_DATE
10/6/2020 12:00:00 AM
SITE_LOCATION
7300 W DELTA AVE
RECEIVED_DATE
10/5/2020 12:00:00 AM
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
EHIntern
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.
/
243
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 showthat 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(eg.,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 forthe 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 Scurces,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 /> 5 <br /> Planning Commission Staff Report, PA-1800316(UP) 9 <br /> Environmental Review <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.