SR 05:062 - Laserfiche WebLink

C. Sierra Club, NCR. A, the Measure D Committee, ALARM and Castle & Cooke California, Inc. filed suit challenging the County's actions in Sierra Club et al. vs. County of Alameda, et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 777721-7 (the "Sierra Club Lawsuit"). D. Liverraore filed suit challenging the County's actions in City of Liverrnore vs. County of Alameda, et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. 785569-0 (the "Livennore Lawsuit"). E. Pleasaaton filed suit challenging the County's actions in City of Pleasanton vs. County of Alameda, et al., Alameda County Superior Court Case No. V-012791-8 (the "Pleasanton Lawsuit"). F. The Sierra Club Lawsuit, the Livermore Lawsuit, and the Pleasanton Lawsuit were consolidated by order of court pursuant to a stipulation of the Parties (the "Consolidated Lawsuits"), and were heard in the Alameda County Superior Court by Judge Alex Saldamando, sitting by designation of the Judicial Council. Following briefing by the Parties and a hearing, on September 1, 1998, the court entered judgment on behalf of petitioners, finding certain aspects oftbe Final :Environment Impact Report to be in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act. The judgment and accompanying writ directed the County to set aside the 1996 Permit. G. WMAC timely filed a notice of appeal following entry of the court's judgment. Following the filing of WMAC's notice of appeal, the Board suspended the 1996 Permit but did not revoke the permit, pending settlement discussions between the Parties. As a result of this action, WMAC is currently operating the ALRRF pursuant to the Existing Permit. H. Following the filing of WMAC's notice of appeal, the Parties engaged in extensive settlement discussions and negotiations to resolve the Consolidated Lawsuits by providing for a smaller landfill expansion with fewer proposed imports of waste to Alameda County. Castle & Cooke California, Inc. initially participated in these settlement discussions. The Measure D Committee participated throughout the settlement discussins but has chosen not to support or oppose the settlement. I. The Parties have entered into this Agreement to settle each and any of their respective Claims under the Consolidated Lawsuits and any appeals thereof without further litigation, and to set forth their mutual understandings as to implementing a substantially reduced, 40 million-ton expansion of the ALRRF, including additional reslrictions on particular categories of waste and significantly reduced imports of waste. J. The processing and approval of an amended use permit and the preparation of a new CEQA document, such as a revised final EIR, as provided for in this Agreement, are intended by the Parties to fully satisfy the requirements of the judgment and writ in the Consolidated Lawsuits by adding restrictions to the operation of the ALRRF expansion. 2 Final Attamont Settlement Agreement