Laserfiche WebLink
an area where landf~lling could not lawfully take place, and did not in the alternative seek an <br />amendment restricted to 13.4 areas of its existing property, this Court should not rants c <br />g u h an <br />amendment now. emphasis added}. <br />B• E L's Ie~ter; ERL's March 9 letter states an pages 2-3 that, "if the amendments are ad <br />opted <br />by the Czty Council, then City will no longer be able to maintain as it did ear i ' <br />l er, that ERL s <br />requested 13-acre expansion within the existing 137,4Aacre landfill ro er could and s <br />p ~ tY hould <br />instead bepursued through either ~1} ERL's annual renewal rocess or 2 a ne <br />p ~ } w 13 acre <br />CUPILicense amendment appl~cat~on before City," hem basis added .l <br />p ) <br />The C1's filings; ~n its January 21, 2010, brief in opposition to ERL's motion for summ <br />azy <br />judgment, the City wrote; <br />In the alternative, the Landf 11 claims that it is "entitled to its CUP and <br />License amendments as it relates to the 13,4 acre ortion of the 73,4 acre M <br />p Sw <br />landfill expansion which is within the existing 137,4 acre ro ert ," ~ , Br. <br />p p y i p at 2}, <br />However, that argument does not describe an actual amendment that the Landfill <br />requested the City to grant, but describes a fraction of the much lar er CUP <br />g <br />amendment that it requested and that was properly denied, That fallback ar ument is <br />g <br />all about where those 13.4 acres supposedly fall - on ro ert alread within h <br />p p Y y to <br />SwF dxstr~ct. However, a CUP is not just about "where," but is also about "what " <br />and the only "what" described in the Application was a ro osed ex anded landfil <br />pp p 1 <br />that went well beyond the SV~F District and the Landfill's ro ert .The ide <br />p p y a of <br />granting an amended CUP for a fraction of a proposed expansion, when that <br />proposed expansion presumed the availability of the SDA, is mis aided, The <br />Landfill' ~ g <br />s Application did not seek, ~n the alternative, such an amendment and the <br />Landfill cannot ask this Court to compel its approval, <br />Denial of a CUP amendment to landfill on the 109-acre SDA effectivel <br />revents the Landfill fro ~ Y <br />p m going forward with its design for an expanded landfill, <br />even for that portion of the proposed expansion that is on ro ert the Landfill <br />p p Y <br />already owned and is already within the SwF district, The desi n of the L n ' <br />g a dill s <br />proposed expansion presumes that the Landfill does not need to use its existin <br />g <br />property for a southern slope to the Landfill and buffer area. To the contrar the <br />Y~ <br />~ The Landfill's March 9 letter also attaches its ' <br />amendment application, where ERL argues on <br />page 317 that "the City even scoffed at the notion that `the Landfill trul believes that h <br />y t e scope of <br />its current CUP prevents it from using as part of a landfillin facilit art of i ' <br />g y p is property ~n the area <br />within the current SwF D~str~ct, and ~t suggests that the ERL `resolve that uncert i <br />a my as part of , , . <br />the ~pai~ties'~ process of discussing conditions for renewal of the Land ' <br />X11 s current CUP and <br />License,' But, when the ERL submitted just such a re uest as art of the renew ' <br />. q p al process, the City <br />determined that a separate CUPILicense amendment a Iication was re aired " <br />pp q <br />2 <br />