ARCHIVED REPORTS_2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V. IMPACT OVERVIEW TABLE V-1 COMPARISON OF THE MITIGATED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND THE ALTENATIVESa Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Impact Proposed Project No Project Reduce-Scale Off-Site A. Land Use 1. Implementation of the proposed expansion would LS —N —LS —LS intensify transfer station operations in the project area, and the Increased activity and proposed zoning changes could result in land use conflicts with adjacent uses. B. Air Quality 1. Fugitive dust generated by construction activities would LS —N —LS =LS be substantial and would contribute to intermittent ambient respirable particulate matter concentrations that could violate state PM-10 standards. 2. The project would result in an increase of emissions of LS —N —LS =LS criteria air pollutants from on-road motor vehicle traffic traveling to and from the project site and operation of off-road diesel-powered equipment on the project site. The increase in emissions could exceed SJVUAPCD significance criteria for ROG and NO, Comparisons to Project Comparisons to Setting + Greater impact than that of the proposed project LS Less than significant adverse impact after mitigation Lesser impact than that of the proposed project SU Significant and unavoidable adverse impact after mitigation = Same(or similar)impact as that of the proposed project N No impact or negligible impact +/= Approximately the same impact as or potentially greater impact than that of the proposed project * Not applicable —/= Approximately the same impact as or potentially lesser impact than that of the proposed project B Beneficial ? Magnitude of change relative to the project or level of significance cannot be determined a Significance levels for the project and the alternatives reflect the levels of significance after mitigation. Symbols indicate maximum impact during construction and operation, unless otherwise specified. Stack-ton Scavenger Transfer Station&-pansiotn V.8 ESA/990190