CCMIN101480 - Laserfiche WebLink

plan, advise the Board of Directors of the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority that the Council requests that Chapter 4 of the plan be modified to in- clude the following language: "Solid waste management systems and resource recovery technologies are rapidly changing. The facilities presented in this Chapter have been selected by the Alameda County Solid Waste Management Authority based on the information presented in the Appendices of the Plan; because the facilities meet the commitment to resource recovery contained in the policies of the Authority; because the facilities can adequately manage the projected quantities of solid waste generated in Alameda County; and because they are the most economical set of facilities investigated during this plan update. However, other facilities may prove to be more economical and more feasible in the future as new technologies emerge. Chapter 5 includes a summary of different projects under investigation by project proponents in Alameda County most of whom expect their pro- jects will prove more feasible than the facilities indicated in Chapter 4. If this is the case the facilities presented in this Chapter will be modified to include more feasible facilities. Thus, the facilities presented in this Chapter are a "yardstick" against which other facili- ties may be compared. The conformance manual contains the technique of "measuring" new projects against those contained in the Plan. Changing markets, technologies, operating costs and financial factors may result in a completely different set of facilities in the future" as reflected in a letter from the City of Newark dated August 29, 1980; and that in addition the Council is concerned that the specific method used to allocate the costs of constructing the necessary solid waste management facilities recognize in an equitable manner the financial investment already made by Pleasanton resi- dents in the construction of the Pleasanton transfer station, and that further- more, the Council requests that the manner in which this financial investment is accounted for in the cost allocation formula be subject to the approval of the Pleasanton City Council, be adopted. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Butler, Kephart, Mohr, Wood, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None Application of certain provisions of the Vehicle Code on private parking facilities serving shopping centers (both regional and peighborhood) in t~e Cit7 of Pleasanton pursuant to Section 21107.8 of the California Vehicle Code Mr. Levine presented his report (SR 80:298) dated October 9, 1980, regarding this matter. He stated he had received communications from several developers supporting this item. ,Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing open. No one in the audience spoke in favor of or in opposition to this item. Mayor Mercer declared the public hearing closed. It was moved by Councilmember Kephart, and seconded by Councilmember Wood, that Resolution No. 80-267, approving the application of certain provisions of the Vehicle Code on private parking facilities serving shopping centers (both regional 14. 10/14/80