Laserfiche WebLink
Draft Environmental p <br /> Impact Report Page II-39 <br /> Forward Inc. Landfill Expansion <br /> D. ALTERNATIVES <br /> This EIR analyzes two alternatives: <br /> • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative; <br /> • Alternative 2: Reduced Project Alternative <br /> Other possible alternatives, including an offsite landfill alternative, increased waste <br /> diversion, and expansion of other existing County landfills were considered but rejected <br /> as infeasible. <br /> Alternative 1: No Project Alternative <br /> This alternative assumes that the proposed Forward Landfill consolidation and <br /> expansion project would not be implemented, and the existing Forward Landfills, would <br /> continue to operate under existing permits. This alternative would have impacts that <br /> are similar to those of the existing landfill,with closure anticipated in 2017. <br /> Alternative 2: Reduced Operations Alternative <br /> In order to maximize the difference between this alternative and the proposed project, <br /> this alternative has been configured to include: <br /> • A 50% reduction in coverage in the expansion parcel compared with the <br /> proposed project(resulting in approximately a 50+% reduction in the total fill <br /> increase); <br /> • No change (i.e. no increase) in vehicular traffic or operation hours from the <br /> existing permitted conditions(4:00 am to 12:00 am) <br /> • No creek relocation <br /> • No waste solidification facilities. <br /> The total disposal capacity under this alternative, including currently permitted capacity <br /> at the landfill, would be approximately 20 million cubic yards less than under the <br /> proposed project. At projected fill rates, this alternative would have a closure date of <br /> approximately 2024, or approximately 8 years earlier than the:2032 closure date of the <br /> proposed project. <br /> The Reduced Project Alternative would have reduced impact on agricultural land, <br /> traffic, air emissions, noise, certain biological resources, health risks, and the visual <br /> character of the area,but would still have a significant effect on visual quality, <br /> cumulative air quality, and noise_ <br /> Environmentally Superior Alternative <br /> CEQA requires identification of an environmentally superior alternative other than the <br /> no-project alternative. Alternative 2: Reduced Project would be the CEQA <br /> environmentally superior alternative. <br /> E. OTHER CEQA TOPICS AND IMPACT OVERVIEW <br /> Growth Inducing Im acts <br />