SU0007861 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report Page V-2 v Forward Inc.Landfill 2014 Expansion Project • There would be no visual impacts associated with the Southern fill area. Alternative 5: Southern Fill Area Only Under this Alternative, the Southern fill area would be filled with about 4.1 million cubic yards of wastes, about 54% of that proposed under the proposed project. This alternative would include the existing permitted maximum truck trips (620/day) through the life of the project,with a closure date of 2029 rather than 2031 for the proposed project. Because --� the North site would not be developed as a landfill under this alternative, the existing open space on that site 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. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project except for _. the following: • Noise, air quality, traffic, and odors impacts would be reduced by two years, from 2031 to 2029. • Health risk impacts associated with the expansion would be slightly reduced. _ • There would be no visual impacts associated with the Northern fill area. Alternative 6: Reduced Daily Operations Alternative This Alternative is similar to the 2014 Expansion Project but would include the existing permitted maximum truck trips (620/day) only through the end of the current permit (estimated at 2026).After that time, instead of using the maximum of 620 trucks/day, this alternative would revert to the existing 212 truck trips /day. At projected fill rates, this alternative would have a closure date of approximately 2034 or approximately 3 _ years later than the 2031 closure date of the expansion project. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed project except for the following: • Noise, air quality, traffic, health risk, and odors impacts would not be increased in intensity over existing conditions, but existing landfill traffic, noise, and air pollutant emissions would extend to 2034 instead of ending in 2031. C. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 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 2014 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