SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-4 ' Forward Inc. Landfill 2018 Expansion Project The need for space for these facilities and buffers increase the space requirements for a new landfill, which is why the 2013 EIR assumed the need a 500-acre minimum parcel size, even if the actual landfill footprint were similar to the proposed project expansion footprint. For example,the Keller Canyon Landfill in Contra Costa County,permitted in ' 1992,had a disposal area of 244 acres but a total site area of 2628 acres (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, Keller Canyon Landfill, Permit #07-AA-0032). San Joaquin County's Foothill Landfill has a disposal acreage of 750 acres and a total site area of 800 acres (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, Permit #39- AA-0004). The North County Landfill does have a smaller area, 320 acres with a 185- acre waste footprint (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, North County Landfill, ' Permit #39-AA-0022). However, recently permitted new landfills tend to be larger, for example the Mesquite Regional Landfill in Southern California has a landfill footprint of 2,290 acres out of a total site area of 4,250 acres (CalRecycle, Solid Waste Facility Permit, ' Mesquite Regional Landfill, Permit #13-AA-0026). It is recognized that each specific site has particular buffer needs and lands not suitable for placement of a landfill, however all have needs for ancillary facilities. ' A landfill expansion also would be able to use existing facilities compared to the need for new ones at a new landfill. This need for new ancillary facilities could affect financial feasibility of a new landfill under a certain size. For all of these reasons, the 2013 EIR and this SEIR focus on reduced-project alternatives and expansions of other existing landfills in the county over a new off-site landfill. It should be noted that the ' comment does not identify any potential alternative off-site locations for consideration. The EIR's range of alternatives is reasonable. D. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE r The CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15126.6(d), 15126.6(e)) require that an environmentally ' superior alternative be designated. If the alternative with the least environmental impact is the No Project Alternative, then one of the other remaining alternatives is to be designated as the environmentally superior alternative. The 2013 FEIR concluded that Alternative 2B would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative. The proposed 2018 Expansion Project would, however be environmentally ' superior to Alternative 2B, with a much more limited footprint and shorter extension of landfill life. The proposed project, as detailed in this SEIR, would reduce most impacts compared with the previously proposed Project. Alternatives 4 and 5 would further ' reduce impacts compared to the proposed project. Of these, Alternative 4 would have the lowest impact,because it would not result in creek relocation impacts and would not affect the visual quality of the Southern parcel as viewed from Austin Road. It should be noted that the Forward Inc. landfill is the only landfill in San Joaquin County that accepts Class II wastes, and under Alternatives 4 and 5, those wastes would ' need to be disposed of at out-of-county landfills upon the closure of the Forward Landfill earlier than under the proposed project or Alternative 6. This could result in I I