Laserfiche WebLink
April 24, 1989 <br />Page 2 <br />n <br />simply says that state standards will be met and more <br />frequent cleaning, waste removal and inspections may be <br />required. What is the justification for increasing the risk <br />s to the people and food processing facilities in the area? It <br />would appear that waste will remain in the proposed facility <br />at all times. The EIR does not consider or discuss what <br />specific changes in operating requirements would be <br />required. A daily cleanout requirement by 10:00 a.m. each <br />day with a prohibition of waste on site except between 4:00 <br />a.m. and 10:00 a.m. each day on other restrictions <br />corresponding to actual operating needs should have been <br />considered. <br />The front end loaders are large vehicles which con- <br />ceivably could go directly to the landfills without any <br />significant loss relating to consolidation of loads. Why <br />take restaurant waste? <br />The EIR fails to analyze where the recoverable waste <br />stream is generated. Cardboard appears to be the principal <br />item in question. Why shouldn't the project be limited to <br />cardboard and paper with the requirement that only those <br />bins and loads which are primarily 90% or more cardboard are <br />allowed to be taken to the site. Segregation of the recov- <br />erable paper would appear to be feasible at the major <br />sourcing businesses. <br />The EIR artificially limited the alternatives: <br />Why wasn't waste recovery at the Austin Road landfill <br />considered? <br />Why can't the waste recovery take place at the Forward <br />Inc. site where such an operation already exists? <br />What about alternative sites east of Hwy. 99 which <br />would be downwind of the large population centers? <br />What about locations closer to the sources of the <br />recoverable waste? <br />Why not segregate the recoverable waste at the sources? <br />Why wasn't a completely enclosed operation considered? <br />Why wasn't an alternative limited to transfer of just <br />those loads with 90% or more recoverable waste considered? <br />As to traffic, there is a substantial quantity of yet <br />to be developed land in the Charter Way/Navy Drive area <br />including land which, may be appropriate for a restaurant <br />near the new truck stop. The discussion of traffic in the <br />EIR appears to be artificially limited and intended to <br />rationalize support for the project. <br />