Sierra Club v. County of Fresno
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 508
| Cal. | 2018Background
- Friant Ranch project: master-planned, phased residential/commercial development on 942 acres in Fresno County, proposing ~2,500 units, 250,000 sq ft commercial, and ~460 acres open space; County acted as lead agency and certified an EIR and mitigation monitoring program (MMP).
- Draft/final EIR estimated annual emissions (e.g., PM10, ROG, NOx) well above San Joaquin Valley Air District significance thresholds and concluded some air impacts were significant and unavoidable.
- EIR included general descriptions of pollutant health effects but did not translate project-level emission estimates (tons/year of precursors) into expected pollutant concentrations (e.g., ozone ppm) or concrete health outcomes; it explained detailed Health Risk Assessments are typically done at later, project-specific stages.
- Plaintiffs (Sierra Club et al.) challenged the EIR under CEQA, arguing the air-quality discussion failed to connect emissions to human health impacts and that mitigation measures were vague, unenforceable, and improperly deferred.
- Trial court upheld the EIR; the Court of Appeal reversed on air-quality grounds. The California Supreme Court granted review and affirmed in part/reversed in part: it held the EIR’s air-quality health discussion was inadequate but rejected the Court of Appeal’s conclusions that mitigation deferral and enforceability were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for sufficiency of EIR discussion | Court should defer to agency (substantial-evidence) | EIR discussion adequacy is a legal/mixed question warranting independent review | Mixed question: courts independently review whether discussion sufficiently informs public/decisionmakers; factual methodology choices may get deference |
| Must an EIR connect project emissions to specific health consequences? | Yes — an EIR must relate emission estimates to likely health impacts to be an adequate informational document | General pollutant descriptions + emission estimates suffice; detailed linkage may be scientifically infeasible at planning stage | EIR must make a reasonable effort to connect air impacts to likely health consequences or explain in EIR why such linkage is not feasible |
| Were mitigation measures impermissibly deferred by allowing future substitution of measures? | Substitution clause improperly defers essential mitigation formulation | Allowing substitution for equal/superior measures as technology improves is permissible | Permissible: agencies may retain ability to substitute improved measures if not increasing impacts and if adopted measures are at least partially effective |
| Were mitigation measures too vague or unenforceable (e.g., HVAC catalyst, shade-tree specs)? | Measures lack objective performance criteria and enforcement mechanism | Measures include sufficient guidance, economic-feasibility thresholds, and will be enforced via MMP/permit conditions | Rejection: measures were sufficiently specific/enforceable in context; only deficiency was absence of concrete public-facing linkage between emissions and health impacts |
Key Cases Cited
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (EIR must disclose analytic route from evidence to action; informational role requires facts and analysis)
- Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments, 3 Cal.5th 497 (2017) (EIR must describe nature and magnitude of adverse effects; labeling effects "significant" is insufficient)
- Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova, 40 Cal.4th 412 (2007) (distinguishes de novo review for procedural compliance from substantial-evidence review for factual conclusions)
- Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (2004) (EIR inadequate where it failed to connect degraded air quality to specific health consequences)
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (1974) (requiring disclosure of analytic route an agency traveled from evidence to action)