CORRESPONDENCE_2010-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C Caroll Mortensen January 13, 2012 Page 4 the first of the "substantial modifications" proposed by the landfill operator.' See 2010 DEIR at I-1. Furthermore, Forward is proposing, as part of the Landfill Expansion Project, to expand its Class II refuse footprint on this 184 -acre parcel. Id. Without the boundary relocation, Forward will be unable to expand its refuse footprint. Inasmuch as the 184 -acre facility boundary relocation is the first step toward expanded landfill operations, the environmental impacts associated with these expanded operations must be analyzed concurrently with the boundary relocation. Although Forward's Landfill Expansion Project may require later approvals by the LEA and Calrecycle, established CEQA case law holds that the analysis of environmental effects must occur at the earliest discretionary approval, even if later approvals will take place. In this regard, it is important to point out that the LEA does not appear to recognize CEQA's clear requirements in this regard. In a recent letter the LEA explains, in relation to a question posed about the 184 -acre property, that the proposed SWFP Revision would result in no change of landfill activity on this land: the LEA has not taken into consideration the facility operators action regarding the Williamson Act Notice of Nonrenewal. This project concerns a minor boundary adjustment. The Williamson Act is not a consideration that is necessary for this project. A change in the use of the property is not proposed as part of this project. There is no proposed landfill activity in the buffer area. See December 2, 2011 Letter to N. Jacobs from R. McClellon, San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department, attached. The LEA's position as regards the relationship between the SWFP Revision and the Landfill Expansion Project and its responsibilities as regards environmental review are in violation of CEQA's clear requirements that an environmental document analyze the impacts of a project and all foreseeable actions and that this analysis occur as early as possible in the environmental review process. Laurel Heights, 47 Cal.3d at 398 and Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Comm., (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 282. ' This initial DEIR for the Landfill Expansion Project, circulated for public review in 2010, has not been certified. A revised DEIR is expected to be published in early 2012. The 2010 DEIR for the Forward Landfill Expansion is hereby incorporated by reference into this letter. SHUTE r MIHALY ��-WEINBERGERLLP