CCMIN092094 - Laserfiche WebLink

believed the needs of all can be met through the general plan review process. At the same time the F_XR is done for the general plan, it can be done for the development proposal of San Francisco. If it continues to process with the County, Pleasanton will not be given that opportunity. 9. SPECIAL AND INFORMATION REPORTS Item 9a Actions of the Zonin~ Admlni~rator and Planning Commission. OR 94:56) No action was required or taken regarding the Actions report. 10. REPORTS OF THE CITY MANAGER Item 10a Addition of a ba~-based option to the residential recyclin~ nroaram. (SR 94:319) Chris Sherwood presented the staff report. Ms. Dennis inquired if Pleasanton Garbage Service would pick up at no extra cost extra bags outside the can that contains recyciable materials (i.e. clear bag with slicker affixed for cans, glass, or bond paper). Mr. Sherwood indicated that could be discussed with PGS. Ms. Acosta further indicated it may be possible to show that as an exponsc to the recycling program and not to the customer. Mr. Tarvet still wanted to reduce the size of the can to less than 90 gallons. Ms. Acosta indicated there is discussion of that which will eventually come before Council. Ben Felix, 2860 Garden Creek Circle, asked how much this program would increase the amount of recyclables retrieved currently. Mr. Sherwood indicated it is not known how much this will increase the recyclable material; the major reason for the program is to be eligible for Measure D funds. Mr. Felix asked how much money will be returned to the City and why is the City bothering with this when the people are participating whether they know it or not. It sounded like more bureaucracy to him. Ms. Acosta indicated staff started with the same argument. Pleasanton has a very sophisticated recycling program with the exception of the education portion. 09/20/94 - 16-