CORRESPONDENCE_1987-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

11 transfer station in the City of Lodi and all of the Lodi garbage is trucked out to the Harney Lane site. The additional mileage involved in this would be 14 round-trip miles. He thought it would be feasible to truck the garbage from Lodi to Foothill and that this would save the taxpayers a tremendous amount of money. He mentioned the liabi- lity if there is a leak into the water table, and it could leak 50 years after it is closed. If that happens, the taxpayers will end up having to pay for that. He is very much opposed to the project. He said there is a discrepancy in that Waste Management claimed that there could be a 300 -year life span at the Foothill Landfill Company. The County says "no." There should be some time spent talking to both parties as to how Waste management justifies what they say and how the County says "no," they can't have 300 years. With recycling, etc., if we went to the Foothill site, and within the 36 -year life of this, that something could be done to create cogeneration where we could utilize all of this trash and refuse with a lesser liability to the taxpayers. Howard Seligman, Attorney, 4505 Precissi Lane, Stockton, representing Mr. Jim Burnett, who is the owner of 320 acres of farm -producing land immediately to the north, said that their opposition is not to the site. Their opposition is limited to the issue of providing adequate protections in connection with any toxins that might be on the site, whether it be from contaminated water or through other sources. It is to that limited extent that they are requesting that the conditions that are set forth on Page 8, Item 5(c) be modified to require the County to establish whatever measures are necessary, not only to ensure that there will be no waste -contaminated water going from the site, but also any other toxins that are on the site. He said that to the extent that those words are added, then Mr. Burnett would have no opposition. He said it is very important, based on what is already known about landfills throughout this County and elsewhere, that the issue of toxins be addressed. It is an extremely sensitive area. Government agencies are already involved in having to contend with violations. Adjacent owners, obviously, would be those that would be most initially impacted. He felt it was important that that specific phrase "any other toxins" be added to that language. If you do that, that will satisfy Mr. Burnett and he would have no further opposition. To the extent that you do not, and leave that door open, then he would oppose the project. Director Chet Davisson, said that that set of conditions should be placed with Public Works conditions and not under Burnett Family con- ditions; then Public Works would become responsible for the enfor- cement of the conditions. Mr. Seligman said he did not object to putting the conditions under Public Works, just as long as the wording is part of the conditions so that it is a requirement to address all toxin issues that are on the site that potentially could be transferred off the site onto adjacent properties, from whatever source. PC: 6/1/89 -3- MINUTES