|
~~[ ~~~ A~~ MURGAN
<br />Ells ~ivez{ City Council
<br />N~axch ~ 5, ~~~ o
<br />Page 1 D
<br />inclined. 13.4~acre land~"zll expansion with tine fill exp~.~sion request. City argued to Judge
<br />~arca in writing on Juary ~ l , ~~ 1 ~ and orally on January ~9, ~0 l o that ESL ~.ust subn~it a
<br />separate application for the Z 3,4-acre expansion, City ~.J, Capp, Br, at l 1 ~ 1 ~ (" ~t~he Landfill's
<br />application did not scei~, in the alternati~c, such. an anlen~n~ent for just the ~ ~,4 acres, and. the
<br />Landfill cannot asl~ this Cou~~ to corr~pel its approval"}, To furt~ier its pretense that EI~L simply
<br />needed to first bring its l~-acre landfill expansion request to City rather than Judge Marco, City
<br />also specifically enco~~raged ESL in its January 2l, X014 brief to Judge ~~rco to apply fo~~ its
<br />13,4-acne landfill expansion ''as part of , , ,the ~parties'~ process of discussing conditions for
<br />ren, ev~ai cf the Landfill's current ~1~~ and License." .I~ ~e~.p~.asxs a~~ccl}.
<br />Per City's January ~ ~; ~o l o written invitation to do so, ERL requested on Jan~~ary ~~,
<br />~0 l o to have its ~ ~-acre expansion approved as part of City's ongoing "renewal'T process. Ex.
<br />l 4~. despite having solicited the req~~est, City i~~nediatcly rebu~'fed ESL's January ~, X010
<br />requests and City insisted that EI~.L submit a separate C~JPf License amendment application fir
<br />tl~c l 3 acres. Ex.1 ~ 1, wiling City's bluff, ESL did so on ~eb~~ary ~2, ~~ ~ 0. Ex, ~ ~ 3.
<br />Even by Bec.~'s cln~onology of events, the ~cw Buffer C~rdina~~ce arose in response to
<br />ESL's contention in its January 7, 20 l ~ summary ~udgn~ent brief that it could expand within the
<br />~Oo-foot buffer, zf ~e New Buffer ordinance is adopted by City Council, then City gill no
<br />longer be able to maintain before Judge Marco its thinly~veiled ruse t~.at EPA's requ~stccl ~~-acre
<br />expansion within the existing ~~~.4-aez~e landfill prope~~ty could and should instead be pu~,sued
<br />t~.°ough its ~e~bruary ~~, ~~ ~ ~ i ~-acre ~~JplLieense a~.endtr~ent application before pity.
<br />Consistent u~itl~ City's evasive responses to Judge 'area's January ~~, ~.~ ~ ~ questions regarding
<br />the t~.e availability of this alte~•native approach, this new CUP1Liaer~se amendm.e~~t application
<br />option, lil~e the now closed option of pursuing such expansion trough City's renewal process,
<br />will be proven to have been, a.s Judge Varco openly surnaxsed on January ~9, ~~ 10, a
<br />disingenuous ar~u~n.ent to avoid a substantive ruling on the pending N~arc~ 0, X009
<br />C~PILIc~nse arnendz~nent application for the l3 acres. Despite the obvious and intended
<br />preclusive impact of the New Buffer Cardinance ota ERL's pending February ~, Zo ~ 4
<br />C~PILicense amendment appliaation.~ Becl~ ~,i~zculausiy suggests to City Council that nothing
<br />will have changed.. rd. at ~ ~"the proposed ordinance arnenrinaents, if adopted, will not stop the
<br />Landfill{spending application to expand. That application will continue to be p~+ocesse~."}.
<br />~ Tr.~'~ ~ ~~~. e~ end o~ tie c~is~n ~~~f~
<br />ac~°e ~.'i~ xo e~
<br />City's New Buffer C~rdiu.ance ~Ex, 1 S5, daft turd.,}, if adopted, will contradict City's prior
<br />representation to Judge Marco regarding a ~.ey provision of the parties' ~ot}3 east Cornm.unity
<br />~.~~'~~n]~rit.
<br />
|