|
•
<br /> •
<br /> Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-3 •
<br /> Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Expansion Project
<br /> C. OTHER ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED IN THIS SEIR .
<br /> An additional alternative, an out-of-county landfill, was requested to be considered in
<br /> comments on the 2014 Draft SEIR. This alternative was rejected from further
<br /> consideration in this SEIR as discussed below.
<br /> Out-of-County Alternative
<br /> The County does not have jurisdiction to approve any landfill outside of its jurisdiction, '
<br /> therefore such an alternative would be not be feasible for the lead agency to implement, •
<br /> which is one of CEQA's criteria for considering alternatives (per CEQA Guidelines
<br /> Section 15126.6(f)(1). In addition, even though much of the refuse accepted at Forward
<br /> comes from outside of the County, given the distribution of Class II landfills in the
<br /> region, the Forward facility may be the nearest facility for much of the out-of-county •
<br /> waste that it accepts. With a relocated, out of county landfill, some wastes would be
<br /> hauled for shorter distances while other wastes would be hauled farther. Therefore,
<br /> depending on its location, an out-of-county alternative may not significantly reduce
<br /> traffic, noise, or air quality impacts compared with the proposed project. In addition,
<br /> establishing a new landfill, with all related construction and operational activities, •
<br /> typically requires more land and has greater environmental impacts than infilling an
<br /> existing landfill.
<br /> Other Off-Site Alternatives
<br /> The 2013 FIR and this SEIR do not consider specific off-site landfill sites (other than the i
<br /> possible expansion of two County landfills) in detail because a new landfill would, by •
<br /> necessity, require a substantially larger land area and substantially greater ancillary
<br /> facilities than would an expansion of an existing landfill. Specifically, a new landfill
<br /> would require an operations center, weighing station, truck washing facilities, new •
<br /> access and internal circulation roads, a new composting facility, new materials sorting
<br /> areas, new equipment storage areas, new cover excavation areas, new buffer areas,
<br /> possible new utility extensions/expansions, possible traffic control infrastructure, and
<br /> other new facilities essential to constructing and operating a landfill that already exist at
<br /> existing landfills.
<br /> The need for space for these facilities and buffers increase the space requirements for a
<br /> new landfill, which is why the 2013 EIR assumed the need a 500-acre minimum parcel
<br /> size, even if the actual landfill footprint were similar to the proposed project expansion •
<br /> footprint. For example, the Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County, permitted in •
<br /> 1992, had a disposal area of 244 acres but a total site area of 2628 acres (CalRecycle, Solid
<br /> Waste Facility Permit, Keller Canyon Landfill, Permit #07-AA-0032). San Joaquin
<br /> County's Foothill Landfill has a disposal acreage of 750 acres and a total site area of 800 •
<br /> acres (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, Permit #39-
<br /> AA-0004). The North County Landfill does have a smaller area, 320 acres with a 185- •
<br /> acre waste footprint (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, North County Landfill,
<br /> Permit #39-AA-0022). However, recently permitted new landfills tend to be larger, for
<br /> example the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Southern California has a landfill footprint of •
<br />
|