Laserfiche WebLink
m <br />!m <br /> <br />,m <br /> <br />m <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />! <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />IV. <br /> <br /> major fire occurred at the existing landfill in I980. City fire <br />)trices were used to control end extinguish the fire. The ELS will <br />(amine the potential impact of the project on the services and costs <br /> the City fire department and related emergency services. The <br />ill examine possible mttgative measures. <br /> <br /> may be necessary at some point in the future to take corrective <br /> tions to mitigate a hazardous situation or problem at thc project <br /> re. The E. IS will estimate' the potential costs of these actions and <br /> he impact on local, regional and state governments. The applicant's <br /> roposed plans 'and other available programs to address these situa- <br /> t, tons and their adequacy will be analyzed. <br />I~PA~T MI.T IGAT.ION <br />P~teqtial measures to reduce or eliminate any adverse environmental, eco- <br />~mid, employment or sociological impact of the project will be included <br />!i~r t~e EIS. Spe_cific mitigation measures will be identified in response <br />it~ ti~e potential impacts identified in each section of the EIS. For <br />le~am~ile, if the EIS identifies potential noise i:.~pacts associated with <br />~t~e dperation of the expansion, appropriate mitigative measures will be <br />:d~scQssed. <br />· ' .A~. TE,~NAT [VES <br />£~8 ~ules require that the ElS include an analysis of alternatives to <br />ithe I)roposed project. The EIS is required to compare the enviro~ental <br />ii~nPaCts of-the proposed project with other reasonable alternatives to the <br />~P~oJ~ct: Reasonable alternatives ma'~ include 'locational considerations, <br />~d~st~ln modifications including site .layout, magnitude of the project and <br />;~bns)dera. tion of alternative means by which the purpose of the project <br />!~ul~ be met, A 'no action" alternative shall be included. The potential <br />~.~fe~;ts of each major alternative will be evaluated. <br /> <br />The ~ollowing alternatives will be analyzed. <br />.OHANbES IN MAGNITUDE <br />~Radu~tions in the size or scale of the project that involve chanoes in <br />~he[)~ <br />m~ertical or horizontal dimensions of the project or combinations <br />~her~of will be identified and evaluated, for example, reductions in the <br />I~roPhsed horizontal expansion to minimize land use impacts. <br /> <br />~lta <br />~i~hat <br />~se <br />;~esi <br /> <br />~har <br /> <br /> )he <br /> <br /> ! <br /> <br />GES ~N DESIGN <br /> <br />rnatile designs in the~techntcal 'and physical aspects of the project <br /> will mitigate the effects of the project on the envt?onment, land <br /> md other elements will be evaluated. For example, changes in the <br /> n of the be~ might mitigate noife. <br /> <br />GES IN OPE~TIONS <br /> <br />gas in the day-to-day operations and development of the site that <br />d mitigate the impacts will be evaluated. For example, changes in <br />operating hours might minimize noise impacts on residential areas. <br /> <br /> <br />