5.4. SR 05-17-2010 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Court further. notes that the language in the HCA does not support the Landfill`s argument that the parties contractually `anticipated' that the Landfill would expand beyond its property boundary as of 2003. The parties do not dispute that, when they entered into the HCA, the Landfall had not yet expanded to utilize all of the land on its existing site for which it had the requisite permits and licenses. Furthermore, the contract`s language clearly refers to "expansions and new uses on the Landfill property." (Pet.lCompl. Ex. 26, Section 1.06 (emphasis added).) The parties do not dispute that the Landfill does not own the property onto which it wishes to expand. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the parties executed the HCA before the City created its latest Comprehensive Plan in 2004. Since the Comprehensive Plan came into effect in 2004, any entity that wishes to operate a landfill on land that the City Council has not already guided as `Landfill' in the 2004 Comprehensive Plan must apply for a reguiding and rezoning. (City's Proposed Order at pp. 26-27) (emphasis added). E. ERL's letter: The Landfill's March 9 letter also attaches its amendment application, where ERL argues on page 3-17 that "the City previously represented that it would be `inappropriate [for the City) to consider' the ERL's request for an expansion on this approximately 13 acres without the full expansion onto the 108.8-acre SDA property." (emphasis added). The City's representation: As ERLconfirmed when making a similar argument in its briefs, its assertion refers to a paragraph in an October 22, 2002, staff report to the Planning Commission, authored by Stephen Rohlf, who was then the City Building and Zoning Administrator. That staff report addressed an application by Tiller to change the mining setback on the Landfill's property from 200 feet to 50 feet. In the paragraph that the Landfill purports to describe, City staff wrote: Staff believes that it is inappropriate to consider the current request in context with a future expansion at Landfill prior to the actual request being made. Mining is only one component of an expansion, which should be reviewed at the same time as the other details. Although this discrepancy does not arise from any representation made by us as the City's outside counsel in the pending matters, we include it because at the January 29,.2010 hearing before Judge Varco, we had shown Mr. Perry and the Court blown up versions of (1) the actual quote in the 2002 memorandum and {2) the description of that sentence that appeared in one of the Landfill's briefs. That occurred several weeks before the Landfill's February 2010 CUP amendment application repeated the mischaracterization. 5