ARCHIVED REPORTS_DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

Home Browse Search

7 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)requires an evaluation of"a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives."The project objectives are stated in Section 3.5, "Project Objectives", of this Draft EIR. Alternatives are used to determine whether or not a variation of the project would reduce or eliminate, significant project impacts,within the basic framework of the objectives. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f) specifies that the range of alternatives is governed by the"rule of reason,"requiring evaluation of only those alternatives "necessary to permit a reasoned choice."The choice of alternatives shall be"limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects"of implementing the proposed project(State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f]). Further, an EIR"need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative" (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][3]). State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)requires that, among other alternatives, a"no-project"alternative be evaluated in comparison to the proposed project. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)requires that the no- project analysis "discuss the existing conditions, as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved,based on current plans and consistent with the available infrastructure and community services."Accordingly,the No Project Alternative is evaluated below. 7.1 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The purpose of this section is to summarize the site-specific environmental constraints, as identified and discussed in Chapter 4,"Affected Environment,Thresholds of Significance,Environmental Impacts, and Mitigation Measures"of this Draft EIR. These site-specific environmental constraints, if not avoided through either project design or mitigation, could result in significant or potentially significant environmental impacts. Potential site-specific environmental constraints include conversion of Important Farmland,generation of odors, air quality, ground vibration impacts, impacts to sensitive biological resources and habitats, soils and seismicity impacts,potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources, and impacts to juvenile fish species. With the exception of farmland and odor impacts, all other impacts were determined to be less-than-significant or less than significant with mitigation. The project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts: ► Agricultural Resources. The project would result in the conversion of 41 acres of Important Farmland to public uses (project and cumulative impacts)(discussed in Section 4.1, "Land Use and Agricultural Resources." ► Air Quality. Construction-related air emission contributions would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District(SJVAPCD) standards and sensitive receptors could be exposed to odorous emissions(project and cumulative impacts)(discussed in Section 4.3, "Air Quality"). The potential for the alternatives to avoid or reduce the project's significant impacts was considered in the analysis of alternatives. 7.2 ALTERNATIVES APPROACH The Manteca Wastewater Quality Control Facility(WQCF)is a relatively large wastewater treatment facility that serves the cities of Manteca and Lathrop. As described in Chapter 3, "Project Description,"WQCF operations Manteca WQCF and Collection System Master Plans EIR EDAW City of Manteca 7-1 Alternatives to the Proposed Project