P & D CONSULTANTS - 2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Grand Avenue Widening Project Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary ES.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Table ES -3 summarizes the potential environmental impacts associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative, based on detailed analyses provided later in Sections 2.0 (Impacts Found Not To Be Significant Based on the Initial Study), 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures) and 8.0 (No Project Alternative). Table ES -3 provides a qualitative ranking of Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative. This ranking is a qualitative summary of the detailed technical analysis of the potential environmental impacts of Alternatives 1 and 2 and the No Project Alternative which were summarized in Table ES -1 and which are provided in detail in Section 3.0 (Existing Conditions, Impacts and Mitigation Measures). Refer to the following specific sections in Section 3.0 for those detailed discussions of the impacts of each of these Alternatives: Section 3.2: Land Use and Planning Section 3.3: Population and Housing Section 3.4: Air Quality Section 3.5: Transportation. Section 3.6: Noise Section 3.7: Cultural Resources The purpose of the ranking system is to provide a method for assessing which alternative is environmentally superior when comparing environmental parameters and impacts. A ranking of 1 for an environmental parameter indicates the environmentally superior alternative for that parameter. Rankings of 2 and 3 indicate the second and third best performing alternatives, respectively, for that particular parameter, in terms of environmental superiority. An "*" indicates that the alternatives would result in similar impacts, with no alternative clearly superior to the others, or would result in no significant impacts. These rankings are not cumulative and should not be summed for a "grand total" to identify the environmentally superior alternative. This is because the ranking only assesses each alternative for a specific parameter; it does not consider the importance or weighting of any given parameter compared to another parameter. Therefore, a "grand total" does not accurately reflect which alternative is environmentally superior. As shown in Table ES -3, there is no environmentally superior alternative for a number of the environmental parameters including geology, biological resources, energy, hazards, public services, utilities, aesthetics, cultural resources and recreation. The No Project Alternative is environmentally superior to Alternatives I and 2 related to the following parameters: ■ Land Use: The No Project Alternative would not require the acquisition of any property. ■ Population and Housing_ The No Project Alternative would not result in any displacements. ■ Geology: The No Project Alternative would not require any construction and would not result in any potential for erosion. F. IPROJ-EWGrand eirlNew Text - GrandlExecutive Summary-new.doc Page ES -14