CCMIN032189 - Laserfiche WebLink

415 She urged Council to take a position against the incinerator and request a new EIR that would include final design and complete and accurate facts. Mr. Richard Regania, 2107 Darby, Walnut Creek, spoke in favor of the incinerator and invited Council and members of the audience to take tours of the proposed project. He stated that at the present time 10% of the waste is burned and 90% is being shipped out. He stated the Lab would like to treat all the waste and they are proposing to do that by decontamination. He advised that with all the public concern the Lab is re-examining the proposed facility to assure that the project will be safe. The Lab has requested a further report which should be completed in two-three months. After the report is issued, the EIR will be re-opened for public hearing and allow further input. He expects this hearing will be held early this summer. He advised that this project will need federal and state approval. He assured Council that the proposed incinerator will be safe and will be compatible to the cities of Livermore and Pleasanton, and Alameda County. Mr. Hinkle, 5116 Diana Lane, Livermore, stated the type of hazardous waste emitted from the Lab cannot be compared with X- rays, etc.; it does far more damage to human health. Mr. Dave Bensell, 404 Pine Hill Lane, suggested Council get whatever data it can and take a hard scientific look at the matter, taking into consideration the feelings of the people in this area. Mr. Stanley Rathbone, 325 Ray Street, suggested Council find out the effects of incinerators that are located in other parts of the country before making a decision. Mr. Ron Archer, Pleasanton resident, stated that when originally considering where the place the Lab it was decided to place it in Livermore so that in case of an accident the contamination would be contained within this Valley. He felt that this information should be taken into consideration when reviewing the proposed incinerator. Mayor Mercer suggested this matter be referred to the Environmental Review Committee for their review and recommendation to Council. He also felt that Council's feelings relative to this issue should be shared with other cities in the Valley. Council concurred. item 6b Reconsideration of Decision Denyinq PUD-88-13 (Bridqman Hunton, Inc.) Mayor Mercer stated that after the last Council meeting when Council denied the Bridgman project by a 3/2 vote, he received a call from one of the neighbors in the area asking if this matter could be reconsidered and to allow the neighbors to work further with Mr. Bridgman regarding their concerns relative to the - 6 - 3-21-89