CORRESPONDENCE_1971-1981 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• 600010 San Joaquin County Planning Department January 3, 1973 Page 2 The person preparipg the Planning Department Report has failed to read the review letter submitted by the San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. This response makes it very plain that the roads have been reconstructed in the recent past to a point that enables handling of increased traffic without difficulty. In addition, the future work planned on French Camp, Arch and Austin Roads will solve existing deficiencies, if any, in these County roadways that may be affected by increases in traffic volume or wheel load. With respect to the accrual of effects produced by the project: In this section of the review, the Planning Department states that they are not certain of the life of the project. In addition, they state that an actual program of re-use of the landfill area is not proposed. Additional un- certainty as to the effectiveness of impervious soil linings or cover to be used in connection with the landfill has not been clearly stated and there is some un- certainty expressed as to the monitoring and maintenance requirements to be followed during the operation of the landfill. The Planning Department representative who authored the letter did not examine the report of EMCON Associates in great detail, nor have they in- formed themselves of the presentations and representations made at the past public hearings. All of these details were covered in considerable detail in the report and in the discussions at the public hearing. EMCON Associates will be very happy to discuss with an appropriate member of the Planning Staff all of these details to insure a clear understanding of these concepts. The concern of the Planning Department over the qualification of employees who will be responsible for regulation of the site and their concern over economic viability of the operation seems to be entirely in error. There is certainly no lack of Agency personnel who will involve themselves in this pro- ject. The discharge requirements to be issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board will be very precise and explicit with respect to monitoring net- work and surveillance schedules. Tentative discharge requirements containing these specifications have already been issued (on November 29, 1972). The Planning Department personnel would not have to assume total regulatory con- trol over this facility. Other Governmental Agencies, all of which have quali- fied staff members, will be responsible for enforcing the regulations which per- a tain to disposal sites. Concern over the economic viability of the project is completely outside the range of responsibility of the Planning Department. The operators have experience in this area. They have run tests on the amount of recycle- able materials of those items which have a value at the marketplace and our findings indicate this to be an economically feasible project. The amount to be