5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

an area where landfilling could not lawfully take place, and did not in the alternative seek an amendment restricted to 13.4 areas of its existing property, this Court should not grant such an amendment now. (emphasis added). B. ERL's letter: ERL's March 9 letter states on pages 2-3 that, "if the amendments are adopted by the City Council, then City will no longer be able to maintain, as it did earlier, that ERL's requested 13-acre expansion within the existing 137.4-acre landfill property could and should instead be pursued through either (1) ERL's annual renewal process or (2) a new 13-acre CUP/License amendment application before City." (emphasis added).I The City's filings: In its January 21, 2010, brief in opposition to ERL's motion for summary judgment, the City wrote: In the alternative, the Landfill claims that it is "entitled to its CUP and License amendments as it relates to the 13.4 acre portion of the 73.4 acre MSW landfill expansion which is within the existing 137.4 acre property." (Op. Br. at 2). However, that argument does not describe an actual amendment that the Landfill requested the City to grant, but describes a fraction of the much larger CUP amendment that it requested and that was properly denied. That fallback argument is all about where those 13.4 acres supposedly fall - on property already within the SWF district. However, a CUP is not just about "where," but is also about "what," and the only "what" described in the Application was a proposed expanded landfill that went well beyond the SWF District and the Landfill's property. The idea of granting an amended CUP for a fraction of a proposed expansion, when that proposed expansion presumed the availability of the SDA, is misguided. The Landfill's Application did not seek, in the alternative, such an amendment, and the Landfill cannot ask this Court to compel its approval. Denial of a CUP amendment to landfill on the 109-acre SDA effectively prevents the Landfill from going forward with its design for an expanded landfill, even for that portion of the proposed expansion that is on property the Landfill already owned and is already within the SWF district. The design of the Landfill's proposed expansion presumes that the Landfill does not need to use its existing property for a southern slope to the Landfill and buffer area. To the contrary, the 1 The Landfill's March 9 letter also attaches its amendment application, where ERL argues on page 3-17 that "the City even scoffed at the notion that `the Landfill truly believes that the scope of its current CUP prevents it from using as part of a landfilling facility part of its property in the area within the current SWF District,' and it suggests that the ERL `resolve that uncertainty as part of .. . the [parties'] process of discussing conditions for renewal of the Landfill's current CUP and License.' But, when the ERL submitted just such a request as part of the renewal process, the City determined that a separate CUP/License amendment application was required." 2