CC 01-31-84
.
.
.
.
.
CITY OF CUPERTINO. STAT: c.. CALIFORNIA
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino. CA 950111
Telephone: (1108) 252-4505
HIMES OF THE ADJOURNED REQlLAR HEETING OF THE CITY
COUIICIL IN JOINT SESSION WITH ll1E SOLID \lASTE ADVISORY
COHHITT£E. I£LD ON JANUARY 31. 1984 IN TIlE
COUNCIL CHAMBER. CITY IfALL. CUPERTINO, caLIFORNIA
CC-6311
MaJor PlunlY called the meeting to order at 7'35 p.ra. in
the Council Ch_ber. Clt, Hall.
ROLL CALL
CoUIlO. Preaent:
Getto, Johnson, Rogers, l1ayor PlunlY
Counc. Abaent.
Sparks
Statt Presant:
City lf8nalel' Quinlan
City Clerk Cornelius
SWAC Heabers Presents
Balsano (7155 p...), Block. Boyd, Epstein, Heiner,
IIol_an, M11_. ltukherjee, Shepela, Sl1tol;
INTRODUCTION OF SOLID WASTE ADVISORY COHHITTEE HEMBERS
PRESENT
Chalrperl.Jn Boyd stated that there vas still some tine
tunlns to be done with the Co_Utee'a rePürt.
Ms. Epstein stated that she dld feel It vas a valid re Xll't:
however. it tile eo..Utee had more time anel means they
could look at things in Ireater depth. She expressed
support ror reo,ollnl but realizes that that is only a part
ot tha solution. She inrorlled Council that the report
conelenses how the ~Ittee relt.
Hr. Holzman expressed the opinlon that there was not
technical information to make a decision relarding
Canyon and fel t the issue vas not yet resolved.
enough
Bryan
Council stated that the solid waste QUEstion had not yet
been addressed and a~ked, "Where do we go from here?"
Hr. Heiner atated that he felt evidence shows thst Bryan
Ca"yon is unsuitable as a landfill al te and requested an
ord Inance that Bryan Canyon could not be used as a dl.lDp
site without a vote of the people.
(City Clerk's Note: iJalsano arrived at 7:55 p,m,)
-1-
t
þ
þ
.
MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 31. 198/1 CITY COUNCIL MEI'I'IIG
( CC-63/1)
Chairperson Boyd requested an update or the City Manalor's
discussion with the Ferrari Brothers. He stated that on
February 15 the North Santa Clara County Solid Wute
Han....ent AuthOrlt, would be recaivinl a Countywide
recyolinl progr.. report.
City Hanaler Qldnlen stated that whet he vas discussing
would be a tsollity ovned by Mountain Viell anel could not
reveal the details or nelotiations at this time. He
intol'llled the group that Sunnrvale also expresSed int....st
in participating. The City would have to agree to purchase
a capacity (8-1/2 to 11 years) but could nOlotiate out tor
sale later. He expressed hope that he would have so.e
alreemant on the details by the enel ot the week so they
could be presented to Council. Santa Clera is also looking
at a laneltl1l site anel milht be wlllilll to accept both
Cupertino and SUIIIIJYale tor volUllle for purpo~s ot
oOleneration.
Discussion tollowed relardinl this Committee continuinl or
possibly a~silniRl this topic to the EnerlY Co..ission.
Hr. Mukherjee Energ, eo-isslon, stated that the EnerlY
CotIIIIission was inter.sted in lookil\fl at recycling; however.
it vas not a solution to the gerbag. problem. They are two
separate issues.
Council vas asked it SWAC were to con\inue. would there be
a budlet for them to use. It was SU8lested that a
committee milht be useful to educate and investigate and
could be a rorce in a recycling prosrllll. Such a cOlllllttee
might maintain citizen awareness. assimilate intormotlon
anel keep the City Council inrof'lled.
Council vas intoraed there vas a lot of technical
Inrormation available through the EnerlY Commission.
The possibility or continuing the Solid Wute Advisory
Co_ittee with a reduced n\lllber or members was discussed,
as well as assigning the recycl ing issue to the Energy
CoDlllisslon.
Cy consensus, Council stated that at their February 21,
1984 City Council meeting, they would make a decision
regarding the Solid Waste Advisory Corrrnittee, They
directed Colllllittee members to express their Interest in
se~ving on a committee as well as the a~ea of study.
Council also reque~te<J the reaction of the Energy
Conrnisslon regarding their feel ings and area of interest.
4t 9:00 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.
A it4f I.ÍlMj(
_?-