FRESNO, Calif. (CN) — Advocacy groups sued Fresno County and its Board of Supervisors on Thursday claiming the recent update to the county general plan and zoning ordinance violated the California Environmental Quality Act.
Central Valley Partnership and the League of Women Voters of Fresno sued in Fresno County Superior Court claiming the county and supervisors sought to evade and ignore state mandates in their Feb. 20 adoption of the plan update. They haven’t acknowledged the “execrable” air quality in the San Joaquin Valley, failed to meet their responsibility to fight climate change by controlling greenhouse gases or been open about how the general plan is created and implemented.
“That approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act and various statutes governing the content of local general plans and, therefore, should be invalidated and set aside through this petition," the groups say in their complaint.
They want a judge to invalidate the certification of an environmental impact report and order the county and supervisors to stop work on the plan update and all project approvals.
The plaintiffs say the suit came after over a decade of the county and supervisors trying to dodge state mandates.
In 2000, the county adopted its general plan which included a commitment to annual reviews of that plan’s implementation. The county also was required to monitor mitigation measures, which would be part of its annual progress report.
What followed was a series of missteps by the government.
The first annual report in 2002 showed that there wasn’t enough money to implement a number of programs. No report was made between 2003 and 2012.
In 2013, the League of Women Voters began questioning county leaders about compliance with the plan. Its members met with county staff and spoke at Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors meetings. It also filed a complaint with the county’s grand jury.
Annual reports then resumed.
“Since then, the county has prepared an annual planning report for each calendar year, although petitioners have found them incomplete and even misleading,” the groups say in the complaint.
In 2018 the county issued a study under the state’s environmental quality law for changes intended for the general plan, but took no action. It also issued a notice of preparation for an environmental impact report, a move toward revising the 2000 plan, but never released it to the public.
It wasn’t until April 2023 that the county issued a draft environmental report for its general plan.
“Petitioners and many other individuals and organizations filed comments critical of the draft environmental impact report, collectively raising each and every issue complained of herein,” the groups say in their complaint.
Supervisors on Feb. 20 certified the environmental report, adopted findings and a statement about environmental impacts and a mitigation monitoring program, and approved the updated plan.
“Respondents here have violated both CEQA's mandates in that the EIR does not fully set out all significant adverse impacts of the general plan review/zoning ordinance update, nor does it adopt all feasible mitigation measures to avoid such impacts,” the groups say.
The environmental report has a handful of failures, the groups say. It designates two areas as spots for future growth, but calls them “study areas.” One of those study areas is near the communities of Malaga and Calwa, both of which are disproportionately affected by air pollution. The report doesn’t analyze or show the impacts these areas would face if they, in fact, are used for future growth, as opposed to merely being studied for it.
The report also doesn’t properly address the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on climate change, as Fresno County is seeing drought and more wildfires because of a changing climate.
Additionally, the report has no examination of how the updated plan would impact air quality.
“The San Joaquin Valley has some of the filthiest, most unhealthful air quality in the nation, being classified as in nonattainment of federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone (commonly called ‘smog’) and respirable fine particulate matter (often inaccurately called ‘soot’),” the groups say in their complaint.
They are represented by Douglas Carstens, Michelle Black and Sunjana Supekar of Carstens Black & Minteer in Hermosa Beach, California.
"The county engaged all stakeholders, including the city of Fresno, in a lengthy comment process prior to the approval of the general plan and appropriately addressed all legally required elements in the plan," a county spokesperson said in a statement.
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Lead in Lunchables April 19, 2024 -
