CORRESPONDENCE_1971-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Garr. continued Mr. Jack Hubert, S. Austin Rd. , Mr. Bob Lypch, Lynch Rd. , Mr. Jerry Ulm of S. Austin Rd. The following points were made: Mr. Sherwin stated that in 1965 Foothill, Inc. had a franchise to serve certain areas of the County; this exclusive contract terminates in 1985; he presented a petition signed by 38 people who reside in the area; this is a productive agricultural area; the area is subject to flooding; the dump site will create a nuisance to the area from odors, dust, flies and debris; this is a proposal for the 21st century; the sanitary land fill operation would be authorized to process pesticide containers; this proposal is premature, unfair (in view of the contract that "Foothill" has with the County); his position is in concurrence with the preliminar, position of the County Administrator; test borings were made surrounding subject property but not on the property where the material will bed ped; the property was flooded many times prior to construction of Littlejohn' s Project and the Farmington Project; the project provides protection for a once in 50-years flood processing of pesticide containers will allow contamination of the Delta Waters. Other property owners of the area brought out the following points: This would not be an improvement to the area; the land has always been agricultural; there is presently one dump in the vicinity; dumps create problems for the surrounding land owners, odor, mess, fire hazard; development will raise taxes in the area; development such as proposed could create a problem for those in an agricultural preserve; Mr. Brocchini raises sugar beets and has had problems with rodents coming from the present dump, another dump will increase this problem; this is excellent farm land; that area is beset with several undesirable land uses such as an existing dump, in flight pattern of the jets, Calif- ornia Youth Authority; the road is in poor condition and the additional hauling will further deteriorate the road; there is constant problems with litter along the road and in the fields this use will only add to that problem (some litter was submitted in evidence) ; the trucks will create a hazard to the children bicycling along the road; this is in a green-belt area; the berms will be damaged; this land is highly productive for almonds, sugar beets; this land has a potential for a 30-ton crop of beets; the proposed use should be located in the foothills. REBUTTAL: Mr. Michaels spoke in rebuttal and made the following points: this is not a violation of anyone's contractual rights; the opposition referred to statements by the County Administrator - the County Administrator' s letter of July 24, 1972, directed to the Board of Supervisors, expressed concern over the solid waste disposal program; the County Administrator indicates a pressing problem which needs to be solved within the County. This proposal is not the same concept as a city dump; this proposal is concerned with the recovery of material; it will be operating totally within the confines of a closed building and there will be no flying debris. The test borings were on the perimter of the property as the property was being irrigated at the time the tests were made; they were unable to establish the 100-year flood frequency to this project because the Corps of Engineers did not use those terms in 1965. Fire protection would be greatly enhanced by the two wells on the property. Rodents do not become a problem if the -10-