ARCHIVED REPORTS_1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V Mr. Harry Riddle August 25, 1981 San Joaquin County Planning Dept. Pa2e_5 discussion of the "ripple effect" of the potential project upon th,-,- economic uses and values of the adjacent properties? This section of the report does indicate there are five residences adjacent to the property, but makes no serious effort toevaluate the effect upon the residences and the uses of the adjacent lands by the proposed project. Why are the vineyards of "undetermined age?" Have any draw down studies of the wells in the area been made to determine the rate of movement of groundwater in the area? Aesthetics, page 26: Someone attempting to evaluate t aestfi—etiicS----o-f- the proposed project would be misled by the suggest location "one mile west of the existing landfill." Furthermore, the o paragraph discussed dismisses the aesthetics of the area in general, onl indicating that the site is no different than its surroundings. Wh will the effect of the landfill operation have upon the aesthetics of hi area? Why hasn't the obvious comparison with the existing landfil project been made which is, to put it mildly, less than pleasing to th eye? M Transportation/Circulation, page 26-27 The traffic analysis ignores the implementation of ---t e transfer station/resource recovery operation being instituted. in the City of Lodi, as well as the effect such an operation convenient to the North Stockton population would have upon th4 proposed project. I Also, there is insufficient information presented with regard to the necessity of improving Harney Lane to the proposed site should it be developed. Economic Considerations, pages 27-28: This section is completely •T-ItT��d cision makers need to see is a projection of what the capital costs and operational costs of the proposed project are, not a recapitulation of the County's experience at the existing Harney Lane landf ill . Certainly the operating costs alone will be much greater than the present operation. If the County expects to amortize its capital costs of developing the site, that will further increase its expenses. Does the County propose to increase its charges accordingly? If so, what evidence is there that usage will continue at historical levels? What is the anticipated impact of the transfer station/resource recovery facility being implemented in Lodi? What would be the impact of a similar facility more convenient to the North Stockton area? Does the last sentence of this section imply that the only income generated from the site is property taxes? What contributions are the-