SU0007300 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

§15126.6(e)(3)(f)). State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)requires that, among other alternatives, a"no project" alternative be evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2)requires that the "no project"analysis"discuss the existing conditions ... as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable fixture if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services." The project alternatives evaluated in detail in the EIR were the following: • No Project Alternative • West Only Haul Route Alternative • East Only Haul Route Alternative E.1. Alternatives Considered but Rejected As Infeasible During the Scoping Process In determining whether an alternative scenario could meet the project goals and reduce impacts, the following alternatives were considered and rejected: E.I.I. Offsite Alternatives: In the process of identifying feasible alternatives,alternative locations were considered. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(2) specifically addresses the requirements for consideration of alternate locations. The offsite analysis should consider two key issues. First, would a different location avoid or substantially lessen a potentially significant impact? Second, is an alternative location feasible,based on the project objectives and the factors discussed in Section 4.1.1? The applicant currently owns and operates three facilities that were considered as potential off-site alternatives to the Proposed Project, including facilities in Marysville, Clements, and Table Mountain. However,each of these offsite alternatives was found to be infeasible for the reasons described below. The applicant could theoretically provide material from their asphalt plant in Marysville as it is the only other plant controlled by the applicant that is equipped with the Caltrans approved Recycled Asphalt Pavement technology,which is typically mandated for Caltrans projects. However,the resulting haul costs and increased criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions from hauling material such a long distance make this alternative infeasible. The applicant also owns and operates asphalt plants in Clements and Table Mountain, which are 48 miles and 35 miles away from the Munn& Perkins facility respectively. One of the project's objectives is to compete for roadway project work within the region of the Munn&Perkins facility;however,like the facility in Marysville,the facilities in Clements and Table Mountain are at too great a distance to make hauling material into the area economically feasible. Hauling material from these facilities into the project area would also result in increased criteria pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions due to their distance from the region. In addition,the applicant's facilities in Clements and Table 13