CCMIN051998 - Laserfiche WebLink

minimal compared to those fees. She asked Council to hold out for something that would help pay for the impacts the City has to endure. She said what are the true costs for taking in other people's trash. Is it normal for a 100 students to have chronic asthma and allergies and breathing problems. How much will the increase in truck traffic further hurt those students? This needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner. It is apparent that the people most affected get the least attention. Currently the County has no mechanism to audit the tonnage or inspect the content of incoming garbage. She said if current conditions are not being enforced, how will it be enforced on outside jurisdictions. This expansion will only aggravate existing health and safety concerns. Deals made in haste are the ones made to regret. Council has an opportunity here to stop the process and get more severe restrictions. She does not want to live near a megadump. She asked for Council to vote no on the solid waste authority permit. It will force the supervisors to revisit the issues and together work on a smaller project with just and fair terms for all. Ruth Abbe, 1028 Fair Oaks Avenue, Alameda, President of the Northern California Recycling Association, believed that the County was not a participant to this settlement because it was not invited to the table. Mr. Weinberger said the County was not invited to the discussions because of the reasons he stated earlier. Ms. Abbe clarified that the City of Livermore and the City of Pleasanton and the other plaintiffs on the CEQA suit did join together and offered a settlement to the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors rejected the settlement because Waste Management was not in the negotiations. The City of Livermore and City of Pleasanton and Waste Management Authority were in the new negotiations but not the County or the Recycling Association. She said the City has to examine why it entered into the lawsuit. She felt pan of the reasons was that the City believed that the conditional use permit approved by the Board of Supervisors was not right for the City or region. She said things have not changed. It will still be a huge megadump with import from all over the county. The City agreed when it joined the lawsuit that the 2.9 million tons were too much. Even 2.6 million tons are too much. San Francisco and Alameda Counties are dumping approximately 1.5 million tons per year which is dropping. The difference will be made up with imports. She said an EIR will not be required until the landfill reaches the 40 million ton stage. Other than being left out of the negotiations, she felt the process had been pieced together. The reason for bringing the parties together was to negotiate the plan amendment for the Alameda County Waste Management Authority. She felt that the Authority could negotiate its own plan amendment. She urged the Council to reject this offer, help with the CEQA suit and then work with the Board of Supervisors on a new and approved plan. Trent Orr, 96 Manchester Street, San Francisco, attorney for the Sierra Club, etc., urged Council to stay with the lawsuit. He said what is being offered is not significant enough to walk away. The question is how much more can this expansion take in? As approved by the County, Pleasanton City Council 33 05/19/98 Minutes