ARCHIVED REPORTS_1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

#9. #10. David Grilli (cont). Alleged the cost of acquisition would be over one million dollars. Staff - The one million dollars includes land acquisition as wel-1-as the development of the site and also the purchase of equipment. The County has an appraised value for the subject property in the amount of $144,000. David Navone. 20080 E. Kettleman Lane. Alleged that water would run off the land due to lack of Vegetation like runoff from pavement, that open garbage is accessible to animals and drainage. Staff — Runoff from the land will not be increased. The area of the property not being used for landfill will remain as before and will be leased for continuous agricultural use. The operation— al plan will utilize for landfill about.5 acres per year. And will reclaim the land upon filling of the excavation and restore the top soil, thereby returning it to the area being leased for agricultural use. A mAximum of about 15 acres would be out of agricultural production at any period of time and ultimately the entire site would return to, agricultural use. The refuse will not be accessible to animals and drainage in that complete coverage daily consisting of 6 inches of compacted soil will be required. Pat Gualc2. 2041� E-Jianey Lilne. Alleged that money to be spent on the purchase of the new site would be better npont in developing a new mathod of wamte pro— cessing. In another 20 to 30 years site will be full and County will be faced with same problem. Staff — The advantages of materials recovery is appreciated. T,Towev-er, the markets for secondary materials are not well developed. Markets must also be in close proximity or shipping costs will significantly downgrade the credits. It is felt that materials recovery should be implemented only to the extent that a profit— able operation can be sustained.