Laserfiche WebLink
DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI <br />DAVID L. GRILLI <br />DANIEL A. MCDANIEL <br />n <br />NOMELLINI & GRILLI <br />PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATIONS <br />235 EAST WEBER AVENUE <br />P.O. BOX 1461 <br />STOCKTON. CALIFORNIA 95201-1461 <br />11 <br />DANTE JOHN NOMELLINI <br />PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION <br />DAVID L. GRILLI <br />PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION <br />TELEPHONE(209)465-5883 <br />Telecopier: (209) 465-3956. <br />April 24, 1989 <br />Planning Division ��,.• <br />Community Development Department APIA 1G9 <br />City of Stockton <br />6 E. Lindsay Street <br />Stockton, CA 95202 <br />i <br />1;;;.j�i, <br />L, <br />Re: EIR 5 -88 -Draft Environmental Impact Report - <br />Stockton Scavenger Transfer Station Expansion <br />(SCH #88120516) <br />Dear Sir: <br />I am one of the owners of the property located between <br />Navy Drive and Charter Way commonly known as the Nomellini <br />Construction Co. property which is downwind from the <br />proposed Transfer Station. <br />As set forth in my June 27, 1988 letter the subject <br />proposal appears to be the same as that which was rejected <br />in 1976. There is less justification today for a garbage <br />transfer station than there was in 1976. A major portion of <br />the Navy Drive/Charter Way area which will be adversely <br />impacted by this proposal is currently light industrial with <br />a retail and highway service orientation. The area contains <br />a number of food processing facilities and large residential <br />areas to the southeast and west of the proposed site. <br />Our concerns remain to be odor, fire hazard, rodents, <br />birds, insects and potential spread of disease organisms. <br />The proposal does not appear to provide a totally <br />enclosed operation thus eliminating the possibility of <br />control and conditioning of the air quality including odors <br />;4 generated from the site. The EIR appears to assume there is <br />F no nuisance odor generated from the present operation <br />because there haven't been any complaints. An air quality <br />analysis obviously has not been performed and tolerance of <br />the neighbors should not be the basis of judging the odor <br />(✓r problems. Likewise the birds, rodents and insects have <br />been inadequately treated. <br />As to disease organisms generated or disbursed at the <br />site and the exposure to the people and food processing <br />facilities in the area it does not appear that any analysis <br />of the potential problem has been performed. The report <br />