ARCHIVED REPORTS_2000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CHAPTER V ALTERNATIVES The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires an evaluation of the comparative effects of a range of reasonable alternatives to a project that would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project(CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). The EIR is to consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. The nature and scope of the alternatives to be discussed is governed by the "rule of reason." The discussion of alternatives is to focus on alternatives to the project or its location that are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these alternatives would impede,to some degree, the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more costly(Guidelines Section 15126.6(b). The range of potential alternatives shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the project effects. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination (Guidelines Section 15126.6(c)). The EIR shall include sufficient information about each alternative to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis,and comparison with the proposed project. (Guidelines Section 15126.6(d)). Evaluation of a No-Project Alternative is required, to allow decisionmakers to compare the impacts of approving the proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. The "no project"analysis shall discuss existing conditions at the time the environmental analysis is commenced, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved (Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)). This EIR considers three feasible alternatives,which provide a reasonable range of alternatives to full build out of the project: the No-Project Alternative (including the continuation of the existing use and a general discussion of possible alternative uses), the Reduced-Scale Alternative,and the Off-Site Alternative. A. NO-PROJECT ALTERNATIVE Under the No-Project Alternative, uses would be much the same as the No-Project Alternative described in the 1989 EIR: the proposed project would not be developed and Stockton Scavengers Association would continue to operate the transfer station as a small-volume transfer station, limited to handling quantities in the range of its current level of 1.5 TPD to the amount of waste that was handled in the past(which in 1989 was approximately 12 TPD). Based on the EIR certified in 1989,the transfer station has a current, large-volume Solid Waste Facility Permit from Storkmn Sravenger Transfer Station Expansion V.l ESA 1990190