Laserfiche WebLink
a <br /> JAN0 4 1373 <br /> . •. <br /> LAW OFFICES of SAN JQAUtNCOUNTY <br /> JOSEPH 1C flfL <br /> 920 NORTH HUNTER STREET PLANNINGT <br /> SiOCKTOO,C LWORniq 95202 <br /> JOSEPH D.MICHAEL TELEPHONE <br /> FREDERICK W.FEILZER.JR. January 3, 1973 (209]468.9611 <br /> 1 . <br /> San Joaquin County <br /> Planning Department <br /> 1850 E. Hazelton Avenue _ <br /> Stockton, CA. <br /> Re: Forward, Inc. - Resource Recovery Center, Class II-1 <br /> Disposal Site. <br /> Gentlemen: <br /> Kindly allow this letter to serve as a response to the comments <br /> on the Initial Environmental Impact Report, which you forwarded under yodr <br /> letter dated November 30, 1972, to Mr. Jack E. McCullough, the consultant <br /> retained by Forwgrd, Inc. <br /> With respect to"the comments made relating to conformity with <br /> the eneralan: <br /> Under this sub-heading, the Planning Department indicates that <br /> the property in question has been devoted to agricultural uses and that land <br /> productivity is remarkably high. They also point out that the area is in an ag- <br /> ricultural preserve and that land conservation contracts have been applied for <br /> by adjacent property owners. <br /> The productivity of the land in this area has been questioned. <br /> The land to the immediate north up to Arch Road has had very low production. <br /> Some of the land has been abandoned by tenants who have attempted to raise <br /> alfalfa and other row crops. The site is not considered as top prime land by <br /> the Storie ratings. The fact that land conservation contracts have been applied <br /> for by adjacent property owners merely reflects a personal decision by that <br /> particular owner and merely indicates a continued use in agriculture by that <br /> owner. The current Stockton City disposal site has operated in this agricul- <br /> tural area for a number of years. <br /> With respect to future public services and costs necessitated by the <br /> project: <br /> P, <br /> This portion of the evaluation` dwells primarily on the supposed in- <br /> adequacy of Arch and Austin Roads to handle the increased daily truck traffic <br /> to the proposed disposal site. In addition, it sets out that no provision is made <br /> to force the operator of the private project to be responsible for the additional <br /> cost in upgrading and maintaining these roadways. <br />