What's at stake?
There's over 10 million potential truck trips Caltrans didn't analyze for its South Fresno project.
The stakes could not be higher for an area already facing some of the worst air pollution in America.
A court hearing that could have a decisive impact on Valley air quality was heard Friday afternoon at the downtown Fresno County courthouse.
Fresno Superior Court Judge Geoffrey Wilson heard arguments for and against the approval of a new set of Caltrans interchanges at North and American Avenues in South Fresno along Highway 99 which top scientists say will have health impacts “spanning multiple counties,” to the detriment of the development of children at Fresno County’s Juvenile Detention facility.
Fresno Building Healthy Communities and Friends of Calwa filed a lawsuit against the state’s transportation agency in 2023 and want the $150 million project blocked because of Caltrans’ failure to analyze the health impacts of their project on the children at the County detention facility, which is roughly 100 yards away.
“It would be impossible for a building to be closer,” said Thomas Peterson, a law clinic lawyer at Yale Law School, who is representing the community groups, referring to the distance between the kids’ holding cells and the highway project.
“It’s just right there.”
Caltrans said in its 2023 final environmental review that because the kids didn’t live literally on the highway, they didn’t need to analyze the health impacts of the truck pollution from their new project. Emissions near the facility are estimated by Caltrans to increase by 200%.
Caltrans’ lawyers framed the interchanges as a boost to safety – and not related to increasing truck traffic.
“There are existing facilities that are out there right now. We are just replacing existing facilities,” said Caltrans lawyer Robert Gini. “This is not a major expansion project.”
Judge Wilson questioned why Caltrans chose to not analyze the health impacts on the incarcerated kids.
“How did you miss the JJC [Juvenile Justice Center]? It’s one of the largest structures in that area,” Wilson asked.
Caltrans’ attorneys said they looked up to the facility’s front desk. Citing a noise study saying the truck traffic could not be heard from beyond that area, they concluded the kids wouldn’t be impacted.
“It’s not something that Caltrans hid or anything,” said Gini. “It was based on Caltrans’ visit there.”
Yale’s legal team said the overall analysis was unacceptable.
“These communities were systematically erased and ignored in Caltrans’ environmental impact report – for an area already facing the highest levels of pollution in the state,” said Yale law school lawyer Maria Michalos.
Caltrans under fire for helping with 3,000-acre industrial park
The other major problem that emerged for Caltrans was their decision to meet with Fresno County planners in late 2021, who were designing a 3,000-acre industrial park. The project is estimated to cause over 10 million new truck trips a year and needs Caltrans’ projects to be viable, according to previous reporting by Fresnoland.
The Yale legal team said Caltrans’ interchange was “co-designed” with the industrial park planners – and, because of that, the traffic should have been analyzed as well.
“Caltrans considered the industrial park certain enough to determine the interchange project’s scale and design,” said Michalos. “That requires it to be evaluated in an EIR.”
At the hearing, Caltrans said they didn’t analyze the industrial park because they didn’t have the computer know-how to factor in the 3,000-acre rezone.
“We don’t have the ability to make land use model changes,” said Caltrans’ Gini.
The Yale legal team argued that before they chose to approve the project, Caltrans should have done everything in their power to analyze the impacts of their project. Instead, they argued, the state agency “chose convenience over diligence.”
“The EIR is riddled with defects, not in one place, not in two, but throughout,” said Yale’s Michalos. “These are not harmless or innocent errors, but they represent a clear pattern on the part of Caltrans to shortcut its responsibility under the law.”
The judge has 90 days to issue a ruling.
