My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN072099
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
CCMIN072099
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:17 AM
Creation date
10/11/1999 8:23:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/20/1999
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
County of Alameda in requesting these things. He felt the proposed letter was a good <br /> first step. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked how much the Giants paid to Waste Management Inc. to take the <br /> soil. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gray did not know. However, if the soil had been taken to the proper facility, <br /> it would have cost $50 per ton. It cost only $9 per ton at the Altamont, because it is used <br /> as daily cover. Daily cover is soil that goes on top of the garbage so it doesn't blow <br /> around and the smells are covered. More garbage is then dumped on top of it, which <br /> means this lead-contaminated soil was blowing around the Altamont. The Giants also <br /> saved money by hauling to Altamont because it is closer than Kettleman City. He <br /> thought the Giants saved close to $1 million. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti inquired whether the Department of Toxic Substances was <br /> responsible for any of this situation. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gray said it is hard to hold it liable because it is a State agency. Once <br /> someone moves the soil, there is a State fund to reimburse the person if the State makes a <br /> mistake on a toxic material. That could be applied for by the County of Alameda, the <br /> City of San Francisco and even the County of San Joaquin because of the watershed. <br /> <br />-- Ms. Ayala asked where Mr. Lowry, of the DTSC, worked previously. <br /> <br /> Mr. Gray said he worked for the City of San Francisco City Attomey's office. It <br /> is interesting to note the Vice President of the Giants, who worked on this permit, also <br /> worked in the San Francisco City Attorney's office before working for the Giants. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala was disappointed that the Giants did not send a representative to the <br /> recent hearing and appreciated that all five County Supervisors came to the Valley and <br /> asked very good questions. She hoped the County of Alameda and Pleasanton will <br /> remain partners in all endeavors. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti also expressed her appreciation for the efforts to resolve this. <br /> <br /> Donna Cebanne, 4086 Loch Lomand, Livermore, stated the lead-contaminated <br /> soil cannot stay at the Altamont because it does not have a permit for this type of <br /> material. A Class 1 facility requires different procedures for every step of handling the <br /> waste, from transport to final dumping. Safety procedures were not followed. For <br /> example, some of the soil was used to form a tipping pad and to cover roads. These areas <br /> have no liner. She wanted to know how these areas will be cleaned. She reiterated the <br /> circumstances that led to this situation. She did not believe variances should be issued <br /> after the fact. There are three parties involved in creating this hazard: DTSC, the Giants, <br /> and Waste Management. Those parties should take responsibility for cleaning the hazard <br /> at no cost to Alameda County residents. The Tri-Valley Sierra Club supports the actions <br /> proposed by Supervisor Haggerty. This violation was caught only because of the large <br /> <br /> Pleasanton City Council 19 07/20/99 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.