![fresno county court smart search fresno county court smart search](http://www.courthouses.co/wp/wp-content/gallery/california/1568c13.jpg)
Specifically, the EIR provided a single air quality mitigation measure, which consisted of a dozen separate provisions addressing nonresidential development, reduction of residential energy consumption, promotion of bicycle usage, and transportation emissions. In addition to the EIR’s inadequate analysis of air quality impacts, the court also found flaws with its proposed air quality mitigation. However, the court did confirm that the County had discretion in choosing what specific type of analysis to utilize in analyzing health impacts. Due to its failure to provide any such correlation, the EIR’s air quality analysis was deemed inadequate. To illustrate the type of correlation required, the court provided an “extreme” example of a reader of the EIR not knowing whether the project’s emissions would require people with respiratory difficulties to wear a filtering device when going outdoors, or if the emissions would not amount to any more than a “drop in the bucket” to those breathing the air containing the additional pollutants. Specifically, the court found that the EIR failed to provide any specific correlation between the project’s emissions and the likely resulting impacts on human health. However, the Friant Ranch EIR failed to adequately analyze the identified air quality impacts, as required by the Bakersfield Citizens holding. The court found that, in contrast to the Walmart EIRs, the Friant Ranch EIR adequately identified the air quality impacts of the project, by providing the type and quantity of the generated pollutants, and summarizing the potential health impacts of each pollutant.
![fresno county court smart search fresno county court smart search](https://nhs-dynamic.secure.footprint.net/Images/Homes/Tampa9959/10134341.jpg)
City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, which found that two Walmart EIRs failed to adequately disclose the health consequences of air pollution generated by the projects. The Decision: The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Appellate District looked to its prior decision in Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. The Superior Court denied petitioner’s CEQA and general plan inconsistency claims, and petitioner appealed. The County approved the project and certified the EIR with a statement of overriding consideration.
![fresno county court smart search fresno county court smart search](https://x-default-stgec.uplynk.com/ausw/slices/896/53c3dfd52290407986694c1471cfa82a/89684ca9203748578f31d54d521779ba/poster_4c8beabe26df49d095e7288daef441a4.jpeg)
The air quality analysis concluded that, even with the EIR’s proposed air quality mitigation, the project’s emissions would exceed the County’s air quality thresholds, and would therefore create an unavoidable significant air quality impact. The EIR’s air quality section accurately identified the existing poor air quality environmental setting in Fresno County, calculated the annual tons of PM10, reactive organic gases (ROG), and nitrogen oxides (NOx) that the project would emit at build-out, and generally described the adverse health effects associated with each of these pollutants. Compliance with the court’s new correlation requirement could be onerous and expensive and because it sets a new standard, it could provide new avenues for litigation.įacts: The County of Fresno certified an EIR prepared for a proposed master-planned “active adult” community for persons aged 55 or older in north central Fresno County, known as the Friant Ranch project. Why it matters: The court refined its previous test for air quality impacts analysis under CEQA, and required recirculation of an EIR due to its failure to specifically analyze the impacts on human health resulting from the change in air quality due to the project’s air emissions.