CCMIN092099 - Laserfiche WebLink

documentation is available for review by regulatory agencies and would be available to the proposed community monitor. Mr. Weinberger asked Mr. Thompson to produce the forms used for review, which he did. Donna Cabanne, 4086 Loch Lomand, Livermore, believed the settlement had some positive points, but also contained serious deficiencies. She did not think it went far enough to protect the health and safety of valley residents. It allows the largest expansion of the largest landfill in Northern California. It gives Waste 56 million tons of capacity, or a 100 year permit, without significant environmental review. She did not believe there was anything in this settlement to prevent a similar incident such as the deposit of contaminated soil from the Giants facility. She stopped participating in negotiations in April because of this. The community monitor is a good idea in theory, but the monitor will have a difficult time spotting irregularities and enforcing the agreement unless two provisions are added. All the loads going to the landfill should be identified by truck, trucker and load content. That should apply to self haul as well as special waste. There should be the ability to impose heavy daily fines if any illegal material is found. She did not feel the community monitor would be effective without these two provisions. There is no enforcement power at this time. She referred to the difficulty for agencies to enforce existing laws. She was concerned about the time and location of the public hearings. Without inclusion of these two provisions, she wanted the expansion to be limited to household garbage only. This area should not have to run the risk of accepting hazardous waste from nine counties without assurance of safety procedures to insure adequate disposal. The geographic limitations do not apply to special waste. She was appealing to the Pleasanton City Council because it had been the most environmentally sensitive council in the valley. Her original appeal had nothing to do with money for open space, recycling or for a Livermore valley center. These may be important but are secondary to the health and safety of Pleasanton residents. She filed the original appeal in May 1996 in an effort to protect Valley residents, not for money. Most of the money generated will simply be passed on to the ratepayers, we are taxing ourselves to get these benefits. Waste is not paying for them. Some Sierra Club members or other environmentalists may support this deal, but they don't live in this valley and will not live with the impacts and dangers that we will. She thanked Council for being the first council to join the lawsuit and for taking a tough stand and staying in the lawsuit when Livermore did not. She believed that resulted in a far better settlement and believed that adding these two more provisions are the only way to make the settlement acceptable. She urged Council not to approve the agreement and direct its negotiators to add these two provisions. She urged Council not to rush into a decision. Trent Orr, 96 Manchester Street, San Francisco, attorney for the Sierra Club and other environmental plaintiffs in the matter, acknowledged Donna Cabanne for her work in getting this settlement. He said the Sierra Club has had intensive discussions about this matter at the Tri-Valley level (where it was approved 6-1 ), the Executive Committee of the Sierra Club Bay Chapter (where it was unanimously approved), and the national legal personnel recommend concurrence with that decision. In other words, the weight of 37 09/20/99 Pleasanton City Council Minutes