6.6. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

design presumes that the southern slope of the landfill and buffer area wont d be located on the southern end of the SDA, and that southern end of the ro p perty the Landfill currently owns would be used for additional cells of waste de osite p d to a much greater height, See, e,g,, Record at 432, 435, 482, because denial of t } e expansion to the SSA, at a minimum, forces the Landfill's en ineers back to the g drawing board to develop a plan for lanfillin on the landfill's curr g ent property that does not include a high wall of waste enin aru tl at the existin r ~ 9 ~ p Y . g operty line, that portion o the Landfrll s ~not~on that ar ues ~n the alternative for an g order compelling the City to grant a CUP for 1~,2 ercent of ., p the proposed expansion ~s a disaster wa~t~ng to ha en, pp As noted above, the Landf 11 already has a CUP that allows it to use its current property as a solid waste facility, Baker Aff, Ex, L, Supplemental Record at 1476.} The City and the Landfill are already in the process of discussin conditi g ans for renewal of the Landfill's current CUP and License, If the Landfill trul ' y believes that the scope of its current CUP prevents it from usi~ as c~~'t n ~ lc~~cl all' .. g ~ .~ ,~ z~g fc~cll~~y part of its property in the area within the current SwF district the ' ~ t~ cc~~ resolve ghat ~~certc~i~~y as part of that process. However it cannot seek th outcome in at the first instance from this Court, as part of an ap eat from a denial of an a li ~ p pp canon for a much more grandiose expansion plan, (City CUP Response Brief at 10-11) (emphasis added). C. EL~s letter; ERL's March 9 letter argues on a e 3 that "notwithst ' ' p g and~ng its efforts to describe its proposed City Code amendments as a mere `reaffirm anon ' ' ~ ~ of its existing Czty Code requirements, these proposed amendments, if adopted, will instead underscore th ' e obvious -~ namely, that there is no requirement in the existing City Code either 1 for a Zoo-foo ~ } t setback for landfills or ~2}that the State-mandated 200-foot setback be within Cit 's SWF overla di " ' Y y strict. 0n this point, It states that "consistent with its February 2, ZO10 brief to Jud e VarCO Cit staffs 1 ~ ' ' . g y ettez Identifies no exlst~ng City Code setback requirement for landfills." em basis added , ~ p } The City's filings; fn its February 2, 2010 brief, the Cit ar ued; Y g A. So long as the City's CUP continues to include a buffer area requirement, the City's ordinance requires that buffer area to be maintained within the SwF district. Pursuant to City Code ~ 30-1$34 ~a} ~"SwF solid waste facillt overt y ay district"}, "Solid waste facilities shall not be permitted nor conditional u ' ses In any other zoning district," (Record at 2$6}, Thus, if a buffer is re uired as a c n ' ' q o dit~on of the CUP or license, and that buffer is part of a solid waste facillt 30-1834 . , Y~ § ~a) hand other prov~szons} require that it must be located within the boundaries of a SwF ' sold waste facility overlay district. 3