CCMIN051998 - Laserfiche WebLink

more people will recycle. He felt the City of Pleasanton was doing its part to minimize the amount of waste that has to be disposed by increasing the cost on the disposal process. Them were no further speakers. Mr. Pico did not support the settlement agreement. He said the City will not significantly receive anything. He said there are considerable myths with the settlement. He said the people that would benefit are the solid waste authorities that will receive $.75 per ton on imported waste. He said the traffic impacts will still effect the City. The City will still have a megadump in its own backyard. He felt the twenty-five years was not very significant. This dump will probably be filled in twenty-five years and then the City will be forced to approve a new dump. If the minimum amount is 40 tons then the waste management companies will be in a stronger position to argue that they need at least that much to continue. What will happen at the end of forty years? This is not something that is going to stop at the end of twenty years. He said the only thing he could possibly see that the City would benefit from is the slight reduction in the number of trucks that would travel on the freeway system. He does not want to see a megadump in this area. He felt the City was being pushed to settle. He felt this was not the best offer. The City needs to stand up and fight. He urged the City to stand firmly with its environmental friends. Ms. Dennis felt getting involved in the lawsuit was a good thing. She hoped that the lawsuit wins. The difficulty is not to defend the great benefits of the settlement, but the legal ground that is being established. She is uncertain of the outcome and understands there are no guarantees. There is an EIR certified for the project by the County. This type of negotiation is not done is haste. She has strong feelings that the City of Pleasanton should stand with the City of Livermore because it is the closest to the facility. But they are not going forward with the lawsuit. She would be delighted to start all over again. The best thing to do is to send the litigation forward and to have this settlement as a fall back. She felt it was risky not to accept the settlement. She did not know if it was a good thing for the City of Pleasanton to take the lead in this. The stakes are very high. The City needs to think about what would happen if it did not prevail. Mayor Tarver felt he is between a rock and hard place. Should the City go forward with the lawsuit or should it not? He has heard the arguments against the City spending public funds to sue other agencies. Then another part of him says take what is offered. The basic problem is that the Alameda County landfill is a megadump that is taking care of everyone else's garbage and is not concerned about the impacts. He said the City objected to this and the Board of Supervisors made a mistake. This is the basis on which the City sued. He said the reduction of .3 million tons is not that significant. He agreed with Councilmember Pico. The City should stay on course and not vote for any settlement that would allow this. Ms. Ayala said in 1996 she went to the Livemore Council meeting where this issue was being discussed and wondered why it has taken so long to be discussed. She does not feel Pleasanton City Council 35 05/19/98 Minutes