SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

y, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-1 Forward Inc. Landfill 2014 Expansion Project V.ALTERNATIVES A. INTRODUCTION Section 15126(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires that an EIR describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, or to the location of the project, which could feasibly attain most of the basic project L objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant environmental effects of the project. Chapter V. Alternatives in the 2013 EIR included a summary of the project objectives and described and evaluated the potential impacts of a full range of alternatives to the previously proposed project. That chapter also described alternatives considered but not studied further. Alternatives considered in the 2013 EIR included: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative • Alternative 2A: Reduced Project Alternative • Alternative 2B:Reduced-Size/Reduced Daily Operations Alternative • Alternative 3: Expansion of North County Recycling Center and Sanitary Landfill i The currently proposed Expansion Project is another alternative to the project evaluated in the 2013 EIR. As described in this SEIR, the 2014 Expansion Project would have reduced impacts compared with all of the previously considered alternatives other than the no-project alternative. However, alternatives to the implementation of the 2014 Expansion Project are available. These involve implementing only one of the two fill sites proposed under the Expansion Project and/or not increasing the daily fill rates beyond current levels. The impacts of these three alternatives are compared with the currently proposed project below. B. ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EIR Alternative 4: Northern Fill Area Only `r Under this Alternative, the Northern fill area would be filled with about 3.7 million cubic yards of wastes, about 46% of that proposed under the 2014 Expansion Project. This alternative would include the existing permitted maximum truck trips (620/day) y' through the life of the project,with a closure date of 2029 rather than 2031 for the proposed project.Because the South site would not be developed as a landfill under this alternative,no creek relocation or new access driveway/bridge would be required, and ;. the existing composting facility would remain. As with the Proposed Project and Alternative 2A,the expanded landfill would accept both Class II (designated) and Class III (municipal) waste. Other than the changes described above,this alternative would have the same facilities and operating procedures (other than hours of operation) as the proposed project. low Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project except for the following: • No creek-relocation-related biological or water quality impacts would occur, however long-term ecological benefits of creek relocation would not be realized. • Noise, air quality, traffic, and odors impacts would be reduced by two years, from 2031 to 2029. 0 Health risk impacts associated with the expansion would be slightly reduced. r.