{"content":[{"text":"This California Environmental Quality Act (Act) challenge concerns the adoption \n of a mitigated negative declaration for and approval of the Newtown Road Bridge at \n South Fork Weber Creek Replacement Project (the project) by respondents El Dorado \n County (County) and its board of supervisors (collectively respondents). The proposed \n project is the replacement of an existing bridge. Petitioners Newtown Preservation \n Society, an unincorporated association, and Wanda Nagel (collectively petitioners) \n challenged the mitigated negative declaration, arguing, among other things, the project \n may have significant impacts on fire evacuation routes during construction and, thus, the \n County was required to prepare an environmental impact report. The trial court upheld \n the mitigated negative declaration. Petitioners appeal. \n Petitioners argue the trial court erred in upholding the mitigated negative \n declaration because: (1) substantial evidence supports a fair argument of potentially \n significant impacts on resident safety and emergency evacuation; (2) the County \n impermissibly deferred analysis of temporary emergency evacuation impacts; (3) the \n County impermissibly deferred mitigation of such impacts; and (4) the County deferred \n analysis of impacts pertaining to construction of a temporary evacuation route. \n In the published portion of this opinion, we explain that petitioners’ framing of the \n fair argument test in terms of the project having “potentially significant impacts on \n resident safety and emergency evacuation” is erroneous. The test is instead whether the \n record contains substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the \n environment or may exacerbate existing environmental hazards. We conclude petitioners \n have failed to carry their burden of showing substantial evidence supports a fair argument \n of significant environmental impact in that regard. \n In the unpublished portion of the opinion, we conclude the County did not \n impermissibly defer mitigation and decline to consider the two remaining arguments. \n Finding no merit in petitioners’ contentions, we affirm.","bbox":{"left":0.117688,"top":0.100418,"width":0.762561,"height":0.7796679999999999}},{"text":"2","bbox":{"left":0.494608,"top":0.933979,"width":0.010621000000000047,"height":0.021896999999999944}}],"images_bbox":[],"images_bbox_not_text_overlap":[]}