Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />Site Comparison and Ranking Process <br /> <br />The relative weight of the site selection factors is presented in the foUowing bar chart. As can be seen, <br />the impact on residents was considered by the CWO to be the most important siting factor. foUowed <br />by compatibility with existing land use and maximizing reuse opportunities. Minimizing the impact <br />on biological and cultural resources, minimizing visual impact, and compatibility with future land use <br />were all weighted approximately the same. Constructibility and ease of land acquisition were <br />somewhat lower. <br /> <br />Importance <br /> <br />80 <br /> <br /> <br />60 <br /> <br />40 <br /> <br />20 <br /> <br />o <br /> <br />REUSE FUTURE USE MINIMIZE BIOLOGICAL ACQUIRE LAND <br />EXISTING USE RESIDENTS CONSTRUCT CULTURAL <br /> <br />The CWO reviewed the results from a number of perspectives. The position of the individual voters <br />on the scale of importance was viewed for each of the siting factors, and their preferences were also <br />analyzed from selected demographic perspectives. <br /> <br /> <br />DAMES & MOORE <br /> <br />Project WATERS Phase 2 <br />October 1996 <br /> <br />AtwolD&MOOlllGllOUP~ <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />O:\OfF\123\DECIDE\WATERS1.DOC <br />