My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN051998
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1998
>
CCMIN051998
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:27 AM
Creation date
2/3/1999 4:43:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
5/19/1998
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
38
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
the figure is 2.9 million per year. The new figure is 2.6 million per year. This is not a very <br />significant difference. He had a concern with the use it or lose it rule or the bank of unused <br />capacity. He said the staff report from the Waste Management Authority attempts to justify this <br />expansion based on the proposed rate of fill in the past. With the aggressive reduction waste <br />control mandates, this figure is sure to go down. Therefore there is no need for a larger facility. <br />The staff report downplays the impacts that this proposal would have in reference to the 25 % <br />average reduction when Council should be looking at the worst years when the landfill would <br />be receiving 2.6 million tons. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked why he was representing Castle Cook landfill in Santa Clara County? <br /> <br /> Mr. Orr said Castle Cook owns the landfill but it is managed by Waste Management. <br />Waste Management's plan is to take waste from the Sunnyvale area. Instead of taking it to <br />Kirby Canyon, where Waste Management would have to pay a high local tax, Waste <br /> Management could save money taking it to the Aliamont. Castle Cook is concerned it will have <br /> a landfill with no waste going into it. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to his comment that coming up with another approval would be <br />an "easy sell" with the County. <br /> <br /> Mr. Orr said one of the things that was supposed to come out of this deal was the <br />conditional use permit that currently exists would require an EIR to be done after 40 million <br />tons. He said the 80/40 are not the figures to be worried about; the figure to worry about is <br />how much the landfill can take in over a year. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico asked who gets the 75 cents per ton import fee? <br /> <br /> Mr. Orr did not know. <br /> <br /> Mr. Weinberger said it goes to the Waste Management Authority. <br /> <br /> Mr. Pico said the Waste Management Authority would have a financial incentive to <br /> import. <br /> <br /> Mr. Orr said that would seem to be the case. Part of what is going on with this deal is <br /> that there are some real mitigation funds being offered. He would argue that if the City was <br /> opposed enough to this project in the form as approved by the County to bring a lawsuit then <br /> what is being offered as a settlement is not beneficial. <br /> <br /> Stan Erickson, 3684 Chillingham Court, commended Council for undertaking the lawsuit. <br /> He felt it was in the best interest of everyone. He thanked the last speakers for explaining <br /> difficult issues in very clear ways. He said the more pressure that is put on waste disposal the <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 34 05119198 <br /> Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.