94-023 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

project or any of the project alternatives, including the environmentally superior alternative. The anticipated need of significant acreage at both sites as right-of-way for the I-5 widening made each site even less viable as an alternative location. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No-Project Alternative, the proposed project would not be developed. The bank and restaurant would remain on site, and the remainder of the site would remain vacant, at least until future piecemeal development occurred. The environmental characteristics of this alternative would be generally those currently existing on the site and, for the foreseeable future, the site would remain blighted and vacant. Additionally, this alternative would fail to fulfill all project objectives. This alternative would result in a net reduction in CO, ROC and NO~ emissions due to the on-going vehicle exhaust control programs that will produce a less polluting fleet for 1995 compared to that for 1993; vehicular emissions of PMto per mile are expected to remain the same. However, as the trip length is estimated to be slightly longer in 1995 than in 1993, this alternative would generate 280 vehicle miles per day more than the number of Vehicle miles traveled per day by existing uses resulting in a negligible increase in PMt0 emissions. Stationary emissions, which result from energy consumption, would be the same as existing under this alternative, and would remain negligible. This alternative would emit approximately 352.16 pounds per day of CO, 39.77 pounds per day of ROC, 33.81 pounds per day of NO~, 0.17 pounds per day of SOx, and 4.10 pounds per day of PM~0, for a net decrease of 46.33 pounds of CO, 8.27 pounds of ROC, and 4.7i pounds of NOx, and a net increase of 0.07 pounds of PM~o. Energy consumption would remain as under existing conditions, representing approximately 95% less building energy demand than the proposed project. Transportation energy consumption would be approximately equal to existing conditions, resulting in approximately 88% less consumption of vehicular fuel than the project. This alternative would have no impacts on fire protection and emergency services, but could result in security concerns such as the potential use of the site by homeless people. It would create no impacts from water consumption and would create no demands on sewer or solid waste systems. It would avoid all impacts from light and glare, noise, excavation and grading, drainage, seismic ha,-rds, and increases in contaminants entering the storm drains. SCS36~6 -$~-