RES 09-051L 'I , 0~ 51
es®lution enyin~ the pplication of lk iv~r Landll, inc. f®r ~
on~prehen~ive lan r~endn~~n~ and c~oninto flow ~pansion ofth~ iii
iv~r Landfill
~~IHEREAS, Ells Diver Landfill, Inc, ~ERL}, a ~vholly~ow~ed subsic~.a~-~T of ~as~e
112anage~nent, Inc, ~1M~}, is the owner and operata~ of t11e Ells River Landfill ~I,a~dfil~}; aid
WHEREAS, Capital Land Group, a land holding company fog Tiller Co~~poration ~'Tille~}, is
tl~e owner of an appioxi~nately ~ 09-acre parcel of land identified as the Southern De~relopment Area
USDA} located immediately sou~.1 of the existing Landfill; and
WHEREAS, ERL and Tjller 11a~~e submitted a land use application Application} to the Cit~r
requesting;
1. An anaend~nent to t11e City's 2004 Co~np~•ehensi~re Plan to amend the Land
Use Map Elefnent of ~~e Comprehensive Plan to cl~ange tl~.e land use designation of the ~ 09~
acre SDA from "Mining" to "Landfall"; and
2. An amendment to the City of Ells River Zoning Map to ~ezane the 109-acre
SDA fiom .~-1 ~E}, Agzicultu~al Consei~cration Mineral Excavation}, to A~l ~S~F},
Ag~icultu~al Conse~-~Tation Solid haste Faclv.t~r}; and
~IHEREAS, puisuant to the requirements of Mitlnesota Statutes and the Ells River City
Code, the Application was referred to tl~e Cit~r of Ells River Planning Com~x~ission for the purpose
of holdi~ag a public hearing and mal~ing a recommendation to the Ells Ri~rei Cit~r Council on rile
Application; and
~IHER.EAS, tl~.e Planning Coi~ln~ission held a public hearing on the Application on June 9,
2009, at which time ERL, ~i1M~, Tiller and their consultants were provided as much three as they
S:~R~solutions~Resolut~on_Den~~ing_,Applica~ian~fo~~Com~_Plan_Ame~ad_ai~d_Rezonin~ ?.DOC
desired to present the Application and all i~lfoimation and data their desifed ~ support of tl.~e
Application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Co~~~.nission tools testimony fio~n all me~~~be~s of the public wl~o
desired to spear at the June 9, 2009 public hea~.~g; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Co~x~tnission closed its public heaping on the application on June
9, 2009, but continued its discussion of tla.e Application to a special meetiiag on June 23, 2009; and
WHEREAS, ERL, wl1~l and Tilley were p~'o~Lrided tla.e oppoltunit~r to submit additional
testimony and written inate~ials fog tl~e ~eca~d p~°io~ to and at tl~e Planning Co~n~nission's June 23,
2009 continued discussion of the Application; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, 2009, the Ells Ri~Te~~ Planning Co~n~nission adopted a resolution
teca~l~.mending to t1~e Ells Rive. Cit~r Council that tl~e Application fog a coinp~ehensi~re plan
amendment and rezoning of the SDA be denied; and
WHEREAS, the Ells Ri~rer Cit~r Council, on Jul~r 6, Zoo9, held a public laea~in.g on tla.e
Application and considered the Planning Commission's recommendation; and
WHEREAS, ERL, ~IN~I, Tilley and all members of the public desiring to spear at the July ~,
2009 public la.ea~ing before tl~e Cit~r Council were pro~rided the opportunit~r to do so; and
WHEREAS, all written materials submitted by ERL, wMl, Tiller, and all other ~neinbers of
tl~e public prior to and at the public bearing on Jul~r 6, 2009 were accepted into the record; and
WHEREAS, during the Jul~r ~, 2009 public bearing, tl~e Cit~r Council discussed the merits of
the Application, directed ti~at staff prepare alternati~re resolutions dellyiflg and approving the
applicatio~a., and continued the public hearing to its regular meeting of August 17, 2009, i~a order to
pro~ride ERL, w1~~1~, and Tiller the opportunit~r to present additional materials to address issues
wised in the staff reports, doting the public healing, and b~T the Cit~r Council during then discussion;
and
S;1RC50~u~1p1]518254,L1t~n~Den~~i~~~A~plication_for,Comp,~Pla,n~,Amend_andWRezajung ?.DOC
wH~RL,AS, on August 17, 2009, the Elk Ri~re~ City Council continued urith the public
heating on t11e Application and piovided ERL, ~i111~1 and Tillef, as well as all membeis of tl~e public
desiiing to do so, tl~e oppo~tunit~~ to present additional testimony and wfitten e~Tidence to the Cit~r
Council; and
wHER~AS, after all paities desiring to present testifnon~ anal offei e~Tidence fo.~ o~ against
the Application had laad the oppo~tunit~T to do so, the Elk Ri~re~ Cite Council closed tla.e public
laea~ing on the Application and continued its discussion of the Application; and
~wHEREAS, by letter dated JuI~T 15, 2009, and at the August 17, 2009 City Council hewing,
ERL requested an oppo~tun.ity to present additional materials and a ~e~rised plan to the Cite Council
in a woikshop session; and
WHEREAS, at tl~e close of its session on August 17, 2009, t11e Ells Rive~• Cit~T Council
directed:
® That any additional ~nate~ials be submitted so t11at a staff ~epo~t could be distributed
to the Cite Council on September $, 2009;
® That the Application be placed on the City Council's ~egula~ wo~1~s11op agenda fo~~
Septembe~:14, 2D09;
~ That the Septe~nbex 14, 2009 workshop session ~egatding the landfill be a joint
meeting with the Cit~r of Ells Ri~ref Plan~aita.g Cotx~nissian; and
~ That tl~e Application be scheduled fog another public hewing at t11e Cit~r Council's
~egula~ly scheduled ~neeting of Septembef 21, 2009; anal
WHEREAS, tep~esentati~res of ERL and City Staff met on August 25, 2009 and Septembet~
$, 2009 to ~e~riew additional matefials submitted by ERL ~egaiding the Application, ita.cluding a
~:ejTised plan fog the landfill expansion, a ~epo~t entitled "ls Landfill. Expansion a Good 1n~Test~nent
fog: Ells Ri~re~" the "~oith Repot"~ and a letter dated September 1, 2009 ~~e~Tised September $,
5.~1~esolutions~Resolu~i~,~De~1}Tin~Applicarian~for_Comp_PI~n~Am~nd_ac~d_Rezai~ing 2.DQC
2009 outlini~ig design modifications to the expansion proposal, the end use plan fog tl.1e landfill, and
other issues; and
WHEREAS, Cit~r Staff and Cit~r consultants ~evieured t11e revised plans, the voitl~ Repot,
the September S, 2009 lettef• and all other inateiials submitted by EI~L, and p~epafed a staff ~epoit
which was delivered to the Cite Council and Planning Con.~nissio~a., along wida. all of da.e matei:ials
submitted by ERL, on September S, 2009; and
~UHEREAS, tl.~e City Council and Planning Coininission inet in joint woil~shop session on
September 14, 2009 to discuss the inate~ials submitted by ERL, including the revisions to tla.e
expansion proposal foie d1e Landfill; and
tiVHEREAS, ERL was provided an oppo~tlinity to present its fe~rised plans and proposed
design modifications fog the expansion to the Cit~T Council and the Planning Comil~.ssion at the
September 14, 2009 wo~l~shop session and the Cit~r Council had the oppo~tunit~~ to discuss and asl~
questions ~egatding the ~e~nsed pi:oposal; and
WHEREAS, on Septeinbef 21, 2009 t11e Ells Ri~Te~ City Council held a public leafing on the
Application and provided ERL, ~lJI~Z and Tilley, as well as all me~nbe~s of tlae public desiring to do
so, the opportunity to present additional testimony and comir~.ent an the Application, as ~e~rised, and
to submit additional written evidence; and
WHEREAS, after all pasties desiring to present testimony and offef e~Tidence fo~~ o~ against
the Application had 11ad the opportunity to do so, the Ells R.ivei~ City Council closed the public
hewing on the Application, contijlued its discussion of the Application, and ~eaclled the decision
ii~co~~po~ated in this resolution; and
WHEREAS, ERL has agfeed in uniting to an extension of tla.e City's trine deadline fog actitag
on the application under Minnesota Statutes, Section 15.99 to 5epteinbe~ Z6, 2009.
s:~Resolu~ions~Resolur~n,~Den~~iE~~Application_.for,~Comp~..Plan,~~nend_and_Rezaning ?.DOC
New, THEREFORE, the City Council. of the City of Ells Rive: ~nal~es the following
Find~.gs of Fact and Decision wit11 iespect to tlae Application of ERL, ~Mx, and Tilley. fog a
comp~el~ensive pla~~ ainend~nent and iezoning of tl~e SDA to allow expansion of the Landfill:
FINDINGS GF FACT
1. Tlae Landfill was fist approved to opefate on 40 aces of land in ~ 97 ~ and fist
pe~~l~itted by d1e Nlit~nesota Pollution Control Agency in 1972.
2. The Landfill eras granted its fi~•st appfo~rals and pex:mits by the City of Ells Ri~re~
puisuant to tine Cry's Solid Taste Facilities D~dinance in 198$.
3. Zn 1997, tl~e City gianted app.~oval fog the Landfill to expand tl~e area approved fo~~
Mixed Solid waste ~~5~~ disposal ffotn its original 40 aces to the cut~ent 93Wac~e footprint.
4. ~~ 19SS, tl~.e Landfill ~ecei~red app~o~ral from Livonia Township to expand die area
app~o~red fof construction and demolition debfis disposal ~C & D} to a total pe~~r~.tted footp~i~at of
75 acres.
5. The Mixed Solid Taste and Cansttuction and Deinolitfon Debris operations at the
Landfill thetefo~e cu~~ently cove~:168 acies.
G. The Application originally p~•oposed the development of additional M5~1' disposal
space on 8.G acres on the soutl.~e~n most portions of existing Landfill prope~t~r and on G0,2 acres of
tl~.e SDA, an increase ~ the l1~IS~1 disposal area with the Landfill from floe existitlg 93 acres to a
total of 162 acres, or an expansion of approximately ~5 percent.
7. As reprised, the Application proposes a~a increase ~ the MSS disposal area withi~r~. the
Landfill of 49.3 ages, an. expansion of over 50%,
8. Total I1~5~1 and C & D disposal areas at floe Landfill would be approRifnately 217
acres if tl~e Application is app.~oved.
S.~Resalu~ions1R~50~L1~()17._Den~~in~Ap~lica~ion~fa~~Comp_~'lan_Amend_and_R~zoi~it~g 2.DOC
9. The proposed expansion of tlae Landfill would extend the 3ife of the Landfill. beyond
its cu~~ent expected clos~.~.g date. The Application as ~e~rised proposes that tla.e Landfill would close
no later than 2029 if tl~e Application is app~o~~ed.
10. Tl1e Cit~r o£ Ells Ri~re~ has been p~oacti~Tely plan~aing fo~~ its futuxe and regulatitag
solid waste facilities since the 1980's. Tl~e Cit~r adopted its Solid Taste Facilities ~xdinance in ~98G,
and the Landfill was rezoned to the Solid waste Facilities ~~re~lay Zon~.g District in 19$8.
11. The Cit~T adopted its fist growth management plan i~ 1988 and its fist
comp~ehensi~re plan in 1995, The Cit~~'s cLX~~ent co~np~el~.ensi~Te plan the Co~llpiehensi~Te Plan} was
adopted. On August 1 G, 2004.
12. The 2004 Coinp~ehensi~re Plan consists of 13 elements, including the Land Use
Ele~x~ent. The Land Use Plan incofpofated ~ the Land Use Element of the Co~np~ehensi~re Plan
designates fire cut~ent Landfill as "Landfd" and the proposed e~pansio~. area ~tl~e SDA} as
"11~ining". Tl~e designation of the SDA as Mi~.ling has not been changed since adoption of tlae
Conlp~ehensi~Te Plan ~. 2004.
13. Changing the desig,-natio~~ of die SDA fxo~a.~. Min~a.g to Land~.ll. on the La~~d Use iVlap
requites the approval and adoption of an amendment to t11e Cofnpfel~.ensive Plan by the Cit~T
Council, as p~o~Tided by N.~i~~nesota Statutes,
14. The Co~nptehensi~re Plan states that it should not be a~.~ended capriciously and tl~.at
tlae followit.~.g questions sl~ould be considered wl~en changes to the Comp~el~ensive Plan a.te
proposed:
® 1s the project consistent wit11 tlae Land Use Plan?
~ Does ~.e project more Ells Rivet towards its vis~an fog the futu~:e?
~ Is tlae p~~oject consistent urith the policies contained file Coinp~ehensi~Te Plan?
S:11~eSOlU~oilS~ReSQIu~{ln_Dc~1pi~1~A~plica~ion~for_Comb_Planr~nlend,~and~Rezofliil~ 2.DOC
~ ~, Policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan which are relevant to the Application
include.
Provide a balanced land use pattern which supports a sustainable mix of jobs and
housing.
Guide the scale of development to be consistent witl.~ the surrounding land uses and
general character.
~ Guide commercial land use to areas that can utilize an appropriately~designed
transportation system without infringi~.~g upon residential neigla.borhoods,
~ Allow commercial areas to develop when they can be designed to be compatible with
surrounding land uses,
~ Include adequate buffering of commercial and industrial developments and adjacent
to non~compatibie land uses,
® Require adequate tfansidon of buffers between differing, non~co~npatible land uses,
falal~.g use of natural land cla.aracteristics, wla~ene~rer possible,
~ Require development of proposals to consider the impacts on transportation and
natural systems be~rond the boundaries of the indi~ridual projects,
I G. Throughout the Co~nprehensi~Te Plan there is an emphasis on attracting
comfnerclal~industrial development, This is important to the Cit~T as this t~rpe of development
builds a community's tax base and creates more job opportunities,
i 7. Another fundamental element mentioned tl~rougl~out the Comprellensi~re Plan is the
need to establish and maintain a positive community itllage by maintaining the edges and buffers
that def~a.e and protect adjacent land uses,
18. Prese~~tTation of open spaces is also an important policy and goal of the
Comprehensive Plan.
19. The Comprehensi~re Plan pro~rides that the gravel m~taita.g area of t11e Cite, which is
located along both sides of North Highway ~ G9 and includes the SDA, be guided for future
de~~elopment of commercial and industrial uses, This area of the Cit~T is envisioned by the City
Council as tl~e future economic eng.~~e of the Cit~r. The goal is to have dais area de~relop with
commercial and industrial uses as the gravel is mined out. The tax base generated by commercial
S:~Resolu~ions~Resolut3~n~,Den~ri~i~.~p~licatlo~~_~o~~_Comp_Plan_Amend~and~Rezoi~ing 2,DQC
and industrial development in this area is intended to support the f~.nancial viability of residential
de~relopment tl~raugllout the Cit~r b~T ~nal~ira.g it possible to maintain. mu~~icipal ser~Tices without
increasing taxes. Although this is vei~~ long range plan~ir~.g, and tla.ere are not fret timetables for
extending public utilities into this area to ser~Te those future uses, this is t11e vision of the
Comprehensive Plan and the Cit~T Council for tl~.s area of tl.~e City. Tl~e SDA is also located
adjacent to the future Higl~wa~T 1G9/221.5~ A~renue Interchange, wl~.ch has great potential for future
comineicial/industrial development,
20. The 2004 Comprehensive Plan was prepared with ~.Ze assistance of the planning f~rrn
of Hoisington I~.oegler Group, Inc.~HKGi}. In anticipation. of tl~.e proposed e~pansio~. of tlae
Landfill tlae Cit~r retained HI~Gi to tape a closer loop at tl~e potential impacts of an expansion of the
Landf~l on the gravel mining area of tl~e Cit~r. HI~Gi's report, the North Highway 1 G9 Land LTSe
Studer, dated No~re~nber I0, 200$, identified a number of potential impacts related to an expansion
of the Landfill and suggested land use, transportation and aesthetic stfategies for addressing these
~npacts,
2l , Followi~~g receipt of tlae Application to expand the Landfill, the City retained HI~Gi
to tape a closer loop at the immediate area which would be potentially impacted by a Landfill.
expansion and to analyse t11e potential financial and f scat impacts on the City of ah expansion of the
Landfill. HI~Gi's report on tl~.ese issues is dated June 2, 2009, was subsequently updated o~1 June 15,
2009, and was updated again on September $, 2009, following submission by ERL of its re~ri5ed plan
for expansion of the Landfill., The HKGi No~reznber l0, 2aos, June G, 2009, June 15, 2009 and
September $, 2009 reports are 1lereafter collecti~Tely referred to as the "HI~.Gi reports".}
22. The HI~Gi reports project potential significant :~~.~pacts of Landfill expansion on
economic development i.n tl~.s area of the Cit~r and on future tax re~renues generated from tl~e SDA
and the surrounding area.
S;~Resolu~ians~Resalut~an,~De~l}Ting._.s~lppJ~cationwfar_Com~_Plan_Amend_and_Reza~ung Z.DOC
23. ERL, ~1MI, Tiller and them: consultants have strongly contested tlae metla.odology
and frtadings of the HI~Gi reports, and the Cit~r Council has listened to and carefull~r considered the
evidence and testi~non~r presented by the applicants and their consultants. The Cit~T Council also
recognizes tlae inherent dif~.culty in attempting to project the potential impacts of a current land use
on futu~•e de~relop~nent which na.ay or may not occur decades from now.
24. However, it is the conclusion of the Cit~T Council that an expansion of the Landfill
will inevitably l~a~Te a long terfn negati~re impact on economic de~relopment within and tax re~renue
generated by at least a portion of the North Highway 10 area of the Cit~r, In particular the SDA and
the a~•ea immediately surrounding t11e SDA. Gi~ren the importance of this area to the future of the
City, tlae City Council cannot ignore these impacts.
25. The Cite Council has also considered potential impacts of the Landfill expansion on
t11e Economic Development Strategic Plan prepared b~T the Ells River Economic Develapm.ent
Autla.ority and the Elk River Housing and Rede~relopment Authority. Expansion of the Landfill
could Dave a negative impact on the fallowing goals in that plan:
~ To diversif~r the commercial/industrial tax base of the Cite to strive for
l~gher quality de~relopments including professional ser~crices, corporate
campuses, energy related and technology businesses;
® Ta prese~~Te l~ig11 priority commercial areas for de~relop~nent;
~ To identify and project a l~igl~er image and vision for the Cit~T that enai~les
the City to successfully recruit and ietain the desired coirunercial/industrial
development identified abo~re.
2C, The City Council finds that an additional expansion of the Landfill, beyond that
approved in 1997 by tlae Cite a~.d in 1998 by Livonia Townsl~.p, is not consistent With the City's
policies and goals as reflected in the City's Co~np~•ehensi~re Plan and tl~.e urorl~ of its Economic
S:`Resalu~ions~Resolu~~i~_Den~~in~AppJscatiot~_fay_Comp_Plan_Amend_an~,~Rezoning 2.DQC
Developanent Authorit~r, Housing and Redevelopment ~.uthorit~~, Planning Coanmission and Cit~r
Council,
27. The Cit~l Council finds that image is a huge dri~rer in encouraging developr~~.ent in tlae
coantnunit~~, drat having the I~aradfill located at the northern entrance to the Cite ad~Tersely impacts
tl~e ina.age the Cit~T wishes to portray to visitors, residents anal potential new businesses, and tla.at
expanding the Landfill. and extending its life span will significantly increase these negati~Te impacts.
28. The Cit~r Council fua:tl.~er finds that expansion of the Landfill uTill pre~rent future
de~relopanent, at a tnini~.num, in that portion of the SDI. -which will be f lied with l~~~ed Saud ~ilaste,
and could discourage t11e t~~pe of high qualit~r coan~.nercial/industrial development which tlae Cit~r is
seeping for tla.e important area of the City jt"1']t"1lediatel~r surrounding the SD.~, including the critical
area around the future interchange at Highwa~r ~ 69 and 22 i 5ti Avenue.
29. The Cite Council recoga~zes that tl~.ere are some positive economic impacts related
to tl~e Landfill, including tl~e la.ost fees which the Cit~r collects froir~ the Landfll and the business
which ERL does with local residents and businesses. However, these are Short term economic
benefits whi.cl~ will end once tl~.e Landfill closes. At that point, tl~e portion of the SDA falled with
I1~S~1 will generate virtuall~T no re~renue to the Cit~r, and tax re~reraues generated frown the i~~~.nediate
surrounding area Will be negati~rely impacted to same degree.
30. The City Council finds that tla.e Landfill also leas non~econofnic negative impacts on
the Cit~r and on surrounding residential uses wl~le it is opera, .~lcluding litter an Highway i G9 anal
other public streets frown trucks anoving to and from the landfill, the ttuck traffic itself, road
anaintenance impacts, noise and odor, Although ERL and ~~Il~i Have been excellent ca~:porate
citizens and ha~re anode e~rer~y effort to i~~tigate these impacts, tl.~ey are not capable of being full~T
ax~.tigated until tl.~e Landfill is closed, expanding the size and extending d~.e life of the Landfill will
prolong the period of time that the City and surrounding residents anust endure these ~Z~pacts.
S,~Resolutians~Resolu~a~~_Deza~Tin~Applica~ion~far_Camp_Plan_t~mei~d~and~Rezoning ?.DOC
3 ~ . Tlae Cit}r Council is also concerned about the potential en~riron~nental impacts
related to the operation of an expanded landfill over dae nest ~~ years and dae potential
en~rironinental impacts related to a significantly expanded landfill footprint following closure of the
landfill. Tlae City Council recognizes that the ll~innesota Pollution Control AgencST has completed
an En~rirontaaental Impact Statement on tlae proposed expansion of the Land~11, but notes that there
are en~rironmental impacts and risl~s iillaerent in dais land use wlaicla ca~anot be faaitigated atlaer than
by lifaaiting the expansion of the Landfill,
32. Tlae Cit~r Council has re~Tiewed and carefull~r considered, along with all other
materials submitted by ERL, the Voith Report, As set forth above, the Council recognizes tlae
potential for same positive economic impacts related to the Landfill.. However, the council finds
that:
® Tlae Voith Report o~~erstates the potential positive econo~.nic irrapacts of dae Landfill,
for the reasons set forth in the September S, 2oD9 Memorandutaa from the Cit~T
Adn~.aistratar, which are incorporated in these Findings of Fact;
~ The potential for positi~re economic impacts is only one o£ many criteria and
considerations to be weighed ~. naal~i~ag a decision to amend tlae Cit~~'s
Cofnprehensi~~e Plan; and
~ The City Council does not agree that a present value economic analysis of any
proposed use should be a determining factor in mal~.g a land use decision.
33, The Cit~r Council lass considered and appreciates the efforts of ERL to mitigate tlae
negative impacts of a landfill expansion, particularly on t1.ae important Highway 169/221st Avenue
interchange, by reducing the size of tlae proposed e~:pansion in tlae reprised proposal arld by naal~ing
an additional 20 acres of land available for potential de~relop~nent at tlae I~atercl~ange. Hotive~Ter, the
s.~Resolutia~s~Resol~.ic~n_Deis}~in~Applicatia~_fo~~_Comp_Plat~_Amend_and_Rezoning ?.DEC
Council fi~.ds that tl~.e Plan revisions do not outweigh the negati~re impacts of the pfoposed
expansion, of change tl~e Findings of Fact set foith in this Resolution.
34, It ~s the Cit~T Council's conclusion, fio~n all of the e~ridence submitted and the
testimony tal~en, that:
~1} An expansion of the Landfill will prolong the negative shot te~xn impacts of the
Landfill on the Cit~T and will ine~Titably Dave a long teen negati~Te impact on the tai base
generated from tla~s a~~ea of the Cit~T;
(2) This aiea of d1e City is planned to geneiate the tam base that will support the
f~~ancial viabilit~r of tl.~e balance of the Cit~r it.~definitely;
~3} Given the iinpoftance of this aiea to the future of tl~e Cit~T, the potential benefits
of a Land~11. expansion are outweighed by tl~e nega~ve economic, enviro~inental and land
use impacts of an expansion; and
~4} An ainendtnent of the Land Use ~~ap Element of the City's Comprela.ensive Plan
to expand the area of the Cit~l designated for Landfill. iiato the SDA is inconsistent with the
policies and goals of the City's Conlprehensi~re Plan and would not be ~. the best interest of
the Cit~r, its residents and its taxpa~Ters.
DECISION UN RAND USE ANfENDMENT
THEREFORE, tl~e Cit~T Council of t1~e Cit~T of Elk Ri~rer ~nal~es tl~e following Decision witl.~
respect to the Appli.cati.on to afnend tl~e Comprehensi~re Plan of tl~.e City of Ells Ri~rer to redesignate
tl~.e SDA fioin 112ining to Landf.~1;
A. All of tlae reports and rn.aterials prepared by Cit~T Staff and Ci~r Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth in this Resolution, are hereb~j adopted and
.~.corporated within the Cit~r Council's Decision on tl~.s matter.
S:~R~salutians~Resolt~i~_Den~~iiy~Applsca~ion_foi_Comp_Plan_~ne~id_and_Rezor~ng 2,DOC
B. The record in this matter shall include all materials sub~x~itted to the Cit~r and presented to
the Planning Commission and City Council, including those materials presented in ~.~e staff
reports, by the Cite staff and by tl~e Cit~r's consultants, and all materials and testi_mon~T
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, ~~111~Z, Tiller and their consultants, and all test~.~.nony
recei~Ted from tl~e public, as of the date of this Resolution,
C. The Application of ERL to amend tl~e Land Use Map Element of the Cit~r of Ells Ri~rer
2004 Comprehensi~re Plan to redesignate t11e ~ 09-acre Southern De~relopmen.t Area from
the Land Use categof~r "Mining" to the Land Use catego~~y "Landfill" is hereby denied.
DECISIQN ON REZQNING
The City Council of tl~e City of Ells Ri~rer further males tl~e following Decision with respect
to the Application of ERL for rezoning of the 109~acre Soutla.ern De~Telopment Area from AW1
~E}, agricultural conse~~vation mineral e~ca~ration}, to A~1 SwF}, agricultural consei~tratfon solid
waste facilit~r}:
A. All of the reports and materials prepared by Cit~r Staff and Cit~r Consultants, as well as the
Findings of Fact and Recitals set forth i~ this Resolution, are hereby adopted and
incorporated urithin tlae Cit~T Council's decision on tl~.s matter
T3, The record in this matter shall include all materials sub~ni.tted to tl~e Cit~T and presented to
the Planning Commission and Cit~r Council, including those materials presented in the staff
reports, by the City staff and bbl the Cit~r's consultants, and all materials and test~.nony
submitted by or on behalf of ERL, w112I, Tiller and their consultants, and all testimony
recei~Ted fro~x~. the public as of the date of this resolution,
C, Based on all of tl~.e abo~Te, and on the additional fact that the application to reguide the
SDA from "Mining" to "Landfrll" 11as been denied, so that rezoning tl~.e SDA from A-1
S:~Resolutians~Resalu~i~~_Dezl~~in~Applicatian_far~Com~~Plaiz Amend_and_Rezanin~ 2.DOC
~12E~ to A~1 ~S~1F} would ~•esult in an inconsistency between the Land Use Map Element
of the Cit~r's 2D0~ Co~np~eiiensive Plan. and tlae Cit~r of Ells Ri~Te~'s Zoning Map, the
Application to rezone the SDA from A-1 (ME) to A-1 (SWF) is denied.
THIS RES~LUTTION PASSED .AND ADAPTED this 21st day o~ September, 2009.
~,
.~
Step11 'e I~Jit~.zing, M .
~~~
~. ._
Tina Allard, Cite Cle~l~
S.~Resol~~ians~Resa~~i~z,~Den~~in~Applica~ian_far_Comb_Plan~,~nend~,an~_Rezaiair7.g ?.DOC