SU0011836 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

John Funderburg April 6,2012 Page 8 ' The County's NOP does not identify any alternatives to the proposed ' landfill expansion. Nor,as discussed above,does the NOP identify the objectives for the proposed Project. In the absence of clearly defined project objectives, it is not possible for members of the public or public agencies to identify or provide meaningful input on alternatives. The County's evaluation of alternatives to the expansion of the Forward landfill will be a critically important exercise. In developing Project alternatives,the County must clearly acknowledge that the vast majority of the waste stream at the Forward landfill comes from jurisdictions outside San Joaquin County. In fact,almost every region throughout California is a source of waste processed,or disposed of,at the Forward landfill. Consequently,the County cannot restrict its identification and evaluation of alternative sites and/or landfills to San Joaquin County itself; it must assess alternative locations across the state. This alternatives analysis must also necessarily evaluate various options for meeting waste demands. For example,the County should evaluate an alternative where Class III waste is diverted from Forward Landfill to other landfills. III. Conclusion In light of the lack of detailed information in the NOP concerning the ' proposed Project and Project setting,the public should have an opportunity to review and comment on a revised NOP. If the County chooses to forego this option and proceed directly with a draft EIR,we respectfully request that all of the aforementioned - information is included in the document so as to provide the basis for a comprehensive analysis of environmental impacts and the identification of feasible mitigation measures t and Project alternatives. t t SHUTE, MIHALY ' C7--WEINBERGERup