CORRESPONDENCE_1987-1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

E o It should not be built here; it should be taken to Foothill; and a step taken for the future by recycling and dealing with solid waste in the proper manner. Mr. Baracco noted that a letter had been submitted to the Commission from Kip and Joan Mellor addressing their concerns about the project. REBUTTAL: Mr. Horton made the following comments to address points made by the opposition: 1.4 million dollars a year versus 1.3 million dollars: The use of Foothill would cost an additional 1.4 million dollars. Therefore, the use of Foothill would be 2.7 million dollars versus 1.3 million dollars. According to the report that was contained in the EIR, the use of Foothill would cost an additional 49.9 million dollars for the 36 -year period. The 300 -year life s2an of Foothill: A design has been prepared for the Foothill site. That a-e-s-ir—gn has been approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Waste discharge require- ments have been given on the site. According to that design, there is an 89 -year site life left in Foothill. If Foothill were to take North County waste as well, then that life would be somewhat less than 89 years. The City of Stockton is having a problem with their landfill. They may be going to Foothill, as well, before too long. If we are looking at all of the Central County and the North County, Foothill would have a life of somewhere between 40 and 50 years. o He said he had a oroblem with the condition to control toxins that runoff the site: They had no problem with controlling toxins that runoff the site that were caused by waste that had been placed on the site. Where their problem comes is that they cannot control what runs onto the site. This is an agricultural area and agri- cultural uses will produce toxins through pesticides, herbicides, etc. As long as there is farming in the area, and water is running onto their property, they cannot control what is running onto it and thereby control what is running off. They intend to lease the property; they are leasing the property and they con- tinue leasing it for agricultural purposes, and those agricultural purposes could possibly produce some toxins that are not related to the landfill. It would be very difficult for them to control those. They have no problems with controlling storm water. That storm water which came in contact with waste would be collected through the leachate collection system and then that water would be treated. They have a problem with changing the phrase "waste -contaminated storm water" to a "toxin -contaminated storm water." Increased recycling: They do propose increased recycling at the site. They are going to be installing a transfer station for the general public that uses the site. That transfer station will 0 PC: 6/l/89 -5- MINUTES