CORRESPONDENCE_2010-2015 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Caroll Mortensen January 13, 2012 Page 2 Development Department Local Enforcement Agency ("LEA") for an expansion and change in operations of the landfill ("Landfill Expansion Project"). The SWFP Revision and the Landfill Expansion Project are related actions and their environmental effects must be collectively evaluated; CEQA prohibits piecemealed review of these projects. I. LEGAL STANDARD It is well settled that CEQA establishes a "low threshold" for initial preparation of an EIR, especially in the face of conflicting assertions concerning the possible effects of a proposed project. The Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928 (2005). An EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the administrative record supports a "fair argument" that significant impacts may occur, even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. Guidelines §§15064(a)(1), (f)(1). An impact need not be momentous or of a long enduring nature; the word "significant" "covers a spectrum ranging from `not trivial' through `appreciable' to `important' and even `momentous."' No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal.3d 68, 83 n. 16 (1974). The fair argument test thus reflects a "low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR" and expresses "a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review." Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus, 33 Cal.App.4th 144,151 (1995). Further, where the agency fails to study an entire area of environmental impacts, deficiencies in the record "enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 311 (1988). In marginal cases, where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant impact and there is a disagreement among experts over the significance of the effect on the environment, the agency "shall treat the effect as significant" and prepare an EIR. Guidelines § 15064(g); City of Carmel -By -The -Sea v. Board of Supervisors, 183 Cal.App.3d 229, 245 (1986). Given this standard, for the reasons described below, an EIR is required for the proposed S WFP Revision. "An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR." San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus, 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 730 (1994), quoting County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, 71 Cal.App.3d 185, 193 (1977). As a result, courts have found that, even if an environmental document is adequate in all other respects, the use of a "truncated SHUTE MIHALY �)--WEINBERGERUP