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 ALTERNATIVESa Alternative 1: Alternative 2: Alternative 3: Impact Proposed Project No Project Reduce-Scale Off-Site B. Air Quality(continued) 3. Mobile emissions generated by project traffic would LS —N —LS =LS increase CO concentrations at intersections in the project vicinity. 4. Project operations could result in nuisance odor LS —N —LS —LS emissions. 5. Project operations could generate particulate emissions SU —N —SU =SU at a level that could be harmful to site workers and the public. 6. The project would contribute to a cumulative air quality SU —N —SU =SU impact in the project area. C. Traffic Circulation and Safety I. The proposed project would generate new off-site LS —N —LS +/=LS vehicle trips, including truck trips, on roadways serving the project site. 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. .Stockton.Scavenger Transfer Station Expansion V.9 ESA/990/90