MARCH 2019

(Click here or above to read)

The Court ruled that the EIR's air quality analysis failed to adequately disclose the nature and magnitude of significant, long-term air quality impacts from emissions of ozone precursors “in sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” The Court noted that the air quality analysis did not provide a discussion of the foreseeable effects of project-generated emissions on the likelihood of exceeding the NAAQS and CAAQS, nor did it draw a connection between the project emissions and adverse health consequences or explain why it was not “scientifically possible” to define such a connection. The Court concluded that “because the EIR as written makes it impossible for the public to translate the bare numbers provided into adverse health impacts or to understand why such translation is not possible at this time,” the EIR’s discussion of air quality impacts was inadequate to inform the public.

On two occasions, the Court presented the concept that an EIR must meet a standard of providing “sufficient detail” or “meaningful detail” to accomplish its mandate to adequately inform the public. Is this decision articulating a new standard for the level of information in EIRs that applies more generally?

 
To comply with the Court’s direction in the Sierra Club v. County of Fresno decision, when significant air quality impacts are identified, the practice paper discusses how CEQA practitioners will need to determine if appropriate methods exist to connect significant project emissions to health impacts or disclose that such a connection is scientifically impossible to make. The paper describes candidate methods. If a method is available, the EIR analysis will need to make a good faith effort to address the nature and magnitude of a project’s air quality impacts on human health. If a method does not exist, an EIR must explain in meaningful detail why it is not possible to connect a project’s emissions to human health impacts. In discussing this and other significant environmental impacts, the Court stated that an EIR must present sufficient detail to serve the purpose of providing a meaningful understanding of the nature and magnitude of the impact, so the public and decision-makers can make informed decisions.
 

If you have questions, please contact Ascent Principals Honey Walters (regarding air quality analysis methods) or Curtis E. Alling, AICP (for CEQA strategies), or the other co-authors of this paper, Julia Wilson, Environmental Analyst, or Brenda Hom, Air Quality and Climate Change Specialist.

Julia Wilson
Environmental Analyst
916.842.3178

Brenda Hom
Air Quality and Climate
Change Specialist
916.842.3174

Honey Walters
Principal – Air Quality,
GHG, and Climate Change
916.930.3184

Curtis E. Alling, AICP
Principal – Environmental
916.930.3181

Ascent Environmental is a dynamic environmental, natural resources, and planning consultancy with offices in Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Oakland, and San Diego. We offer our extensive CEQA and NEPA, urban design and planning, climate adaptation and GHG reduction planning, and biological sciences experience with the goal of providing personal service and high-quality results to our clients on their most important projects. We are certified as a small business enterprise.