CORRESPONDENCE_2017-2018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

} San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors April 10,2017 Page 3 III. SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTS A FAIR ARGUMENT THAT PROJECT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT A. THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD SETS A Low THRESHOLD FOR REQUIRING PREPARATION OF AN EIR. An agency must prepare an EIR instead of an MND whenever a proposed project may have a significant impact on the environment. (Pub.Resources Code.§ 21082.2(d) ["If there is substantial evidence,in light of the whole record before the lead agency,that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,an environmental impact report shall be prepared"]) An agency's decision not to prepare an EIR is judged by the"fair argument"standard of review. Under this standard,an EIR must be prepared"whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact." (No Oil,Inc.v.City of Los Angeles(1974) 13 Cal.3d 68,75,emphasis added;Laurel Heights Improvement Assn.v.Regents of University of California(1993)6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.) The County must prepare an EIR instead of an MND if there is any substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment,even if other substantial evidence supports the opposite conclusion. (Pub.Resources Code,§21151(a);CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1)-(2);No Oil,supra, 13 Cal.3d 68,75; Architectural Heritage Ass'n v.County of Monterey(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1109.) It is the function of an EIR,not a negative declaration,to resolve these conflicting claims. (See No Oil,supra, 13 Cal.3d at p.85.) The fair argument standard is a"low threshold"test for requiring the preparation of an EIR.(No Oil,supra, 13 Cal.3d at 84.) The requirement for an EIR cannot be waived merely because additional studies are required;in fact an agency's lack of investigation"may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences." (Sundstrom v.County of Mendocino(1988)202 Cal.App.3d 296,311.) An MND is proper only if project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects"to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur,and . . .there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised,may have a significant effect on the environment." (Pub.Resources Code§§ 21064.5,21080(c)(2); see also Mejia v.City of Los Angeles(2005) 130 Ca1.App.4th 322, 331.) B. TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION The Project is located on a two-lane road that is 20 feet wide. Based upon the expansion,the applicant seeks to increase the truck traffic from 50 trucks per day to 115 trucks per day and operate 7 days a week. As the record contains substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the significant increase in truck traffic may result in potentially significant impacts to traffic safety,CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR.