6.6. SR 03-15-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Furthermore, the monitoring wells do not require exclusivity in their setting, They can be located in residential ar other developed areas, and frequently are in order to monitor the impact of the Landfill on groundwater in those areas. The required buffer area, on the other hand, can not be used for anything but buffer area for the Landfill, It is undevelopable and unusable for any other purpose, and is as much a part of the Landfill as the service roads and other infrastructure located on the Landfill site, Host Community Agreement A primary focus with the Landfill's litigation strategy has been to attack City staff, including the City Attorney, The Landfill's complaint and subsequent pleadings repeatedly misrepresent our actions and misquote us. In their March 9, 2010 letter to the Planning Commission, the Landfill has carried this strategy to the next level, purporting to tell the Planning Commission what I did or did not "envision" when negotiating the Host Community Agreement, Ta set the record straight, neither the Landfill nor its attorneys have access to my thought processes, not now nor in the past, Furthermore, when we entered into the Host Community Agreement with the Landfill I did not envision, and would not in my wildest imagination, have envisioned that the Landfill would ever say that this agreement gave them the right to expand the Landfill b o ~ y 75 /a. The Host Community Agreement cost the Landfill notl~ing, The surcharge they were paying, and were going to pay, became a Host Community fee. Their net cost was zero, How they can take the position that by entering into this Agreement they bought the right, by contract, to expand at will, is beyond me. This argument was not made when the Landfill was requesting approval of a comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning to expand, and the concept never occurred to me until I read the Landfill's complaint in the litigation. with respect to what I did envision at the time the Host Agreement was entered into, I would say that at that time, and until the complaint was received in the current litigation, City staff and the City as a whole had an excellent relationship with the Landfill and anticipated continuing to work with the Landfill as they renewed and updated their conditional use permit and license every two years, expanded their buildings and other infrastructure on the Landfill site as necessary, and increased the capacity of the Landfill by implementing state-of the-art technologies. That has occurred, For instance, in 2004 the capacity of the Landfill was expanded with the approval of a leachate recirculation system. Implementation of this system results in faster decomposition of waste and an expansion of the capacity of the Landfill to receive waste. 1n 2006, the City approved an expansion of the gas to electricity facility at the Landfill, In 2007 the Landfill requested, and the City approved, a conditional use permit to construct a new storage building and to retain an existing metal skin building previously required to be removed. These are the types of cooperative efforts, new uses and expansions envisioned in the 2003 Host Community Agreement. 3