Laserfiche WebLink
E <br />Mr. Ron Valinoti <br />October 10, 1991 <br />Page 4 <br />III. No CEQA Review Requirement Is Triggered. <br />While we address PHS' several operational and <br />engineering comments in Exhibit 6, we would like to address one <br />of PHS' legal comments indicating that a review under the <br />California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") may be required. <br />Unfortunately the comment did not indicate on what basis CEQA <br />might apply, and we thus have carefully reviewed all possible <br />points of application. <br />Our analysis shows no grounds for invoking a CEQA <br />review where a permittee such as Cove is continuing operations <br />for which it has been lawfully permitted since 1979.21 Our <br />rationale for this informed conclusion pivots on the important <br />fact that Cove is not seeking to change the operations for which <br />Cove is already permitted. <br />A. No Triggering Project Exists. <br />CEQA generally applies to discretionary "projects" re- <br />quiring issuance of government permits which may result in a <br />direct or indirect physical change in the environment.V Cove <br />does not require a new or revised permit for its proposed ASW <br />disposal activities, in that it already has a valid permit for <br />precisely these activities. Cove's proposed renewed activities <br />will result in no new direct or indirect physical changes to the <br />environment, other than those contemplated in 1979. In short, <br />continuing already permitted activities under an existing permit <br />does not trigger a CEQA review, because there is no triggering <br />"project." <br />Our conclusion on this point conforms with that <br />expressed in the enclosed correspondence to and from Bob Ching, <br />Deputy Director of the Planning Division for the City of Stockton <br />(the "City"). The City, as the appropriate local enforcement <br />agency, has recently reviewed the activities at the Facility yet <br />again, and determined that no discretionary permit is necessary <br />from the City and that the landfill is consistent with the City's <br />General Plan.V <br />7/ The six-month statute of limitations on the decision to <br />forego a CEQA review at the time that the permit was issued has <br />long ago run. Cal. Pub. Res. Code S 21167(a), (d); 14 Cal. Code <br />of Regulations S 15112(c)(5). <br />8/ Cal. Pub. Res. Code SS 21080, 21065; 14 Cal. Code of <br />Regulations S 15378. <br />See Exhibit 4. <br />