Laserfiche WebLink
V. Alternatives to the Project <br /> capacity of 8 million cubic yards and close in 2018. The current footprint with increased <br /> elevation would close sooner than the proposed expanded landfill (expected closure is 2045). <br /> Waste would have to be hauled to another landfill (most likely Foothill Landfill)sooner than <br /> with the project. Some of the impacts would occur over a shorter period of time since the life of <br /> the landfill would be shortened;however,most of these impacts would be relocated to Foothill <br /> Landfill. Total truck miles traveled with this alternative would increase sooner than with the <br /> project because the waste would probably go to a transfer station and then be hauled to Foothill <br /> Landfill for disposal and the average haul distance from transfer station to landfill would be 64 <br /> miles round trip. Because the creek would not be realigned,impacts to biology and hydrology <br /> would be reduced. However,this alternative would create a landfill divided by an unlined <br /> portion of Little Johns Creek. The landfill would use the construction and operation procedures <br /> proposed for the project as altered by mitigation measures included in Chapter III. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS <br /> Land Use.Plans.and Policies <br /> The Current-Footprint-with-Increased-Elevation Alternative is consistent with current applicable <br /> plans and policies. This alternative would require alteration to the CYA parcel but not the <br /> Brocchini parcel. Fewer land use impacts would occur with this alternative than with the project. <br /> The Brocchini parcel would still be available for productive agricultural use. <br /> Visual and Aesthetics <br /> Visual impacts under this alternative would be less than with the project because the horizontal <br /> expansion would not occur. Looking at the landfill from the south,the landfill would not look as <br /> large under this scenario as it would with the project;however,the current footprint would be <br /> expand vertically to a height of 150 MSL. Visual impacts from the north would look the same as <br /> with the project. The same structures would be added to the site,therefore the same adverse light <br /> and glare impacts would occur under this alternative. <br /> Community Services and Utilities <br /> This alternative would not require any new services to the project site, nor would it alter current <br /> site demand for these services. <br /> V.13 <br />