On Nov. 15, 2024, a significant event took place as Friends of Calwa Inc. and Fresno Building Healthy Communities submitted a petition for a writ of mandate to the California Court of Appeals. These community organizations, dedicated to the health and well-being of South Fresno residents, were seeking the appellate court's immediate intervention in a complex legal saga related to highway construction and its impacts on communities of color.

Uniting for Environmental Justice in South Fresno

Community Organizations Come Together

In March 2023, Fresno Building Healthy Communities and Friends of Calwa sued Caltrans and the FHWA in federal district court. The lawsuit challenged the agencies' environmental review and compliance with various laws. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) require thorough analysis of project impacts, but Caltrans' initial analysis ignored the affected neighboring communities. Tens of thousands of longstanding residents' health and safety are tied to air pollution from heavy-duty trucks. The petition also cited correspondence showing the highway project's design to accommodate truck traffic for an industrial park. The lawsuit alleges Caltrans broke the law by not disclosing the project's link.Student attorneys from the Environmental Justice Law and Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School wrote the petition. Cat Xu '25, a clinic student, emphasized the illegality of the omissions. Caltrans then challenged the federal court's jurisdiction, and after refiling in state court, it filed a motion for summary adjudication. A team of Yale Law School students took over, briefed an opposition, and traveled to South Fresno to argue in court. The trial court sided with Caltrans, dismissing the CEQA claims.

Health and Environmental Impacts

South Fresno residents have been vocal opponents, showing up at public meetings and writing letters. Caltrans' failure to consider their health is contrary to California's commitment to public health and environmental justice. The petition asks the California Court of Appeals to issue a peremptory writ of mandate to vacate the trial court's order and allow the CEQA claims to be heard on their merits.The ongoing advocacy work led the FHWA to reconsider its approval. FHWA and the U.S. Department of Transportation requested the court to remand claims so they could reconsider the project's consistency with federal air quality laws. Residents demanded a halt to the project, and the organizations submitted a public comment letter with expert analysis.

A History of Inequity

The Fresno project highlights the nationwide fight against racially motivated and inequitable highway construction. Historically, highways were built through Black and brown communities, creating segregation and pollution. South Fresno is an example, with transportation infrastructure leaving the city divided. State and local governments continue to concentrate polluting industries in South Fresno.The U.S. Department of Transportation launched a Reconnecting Communities Program. Morgan Feldenkris '25 emphasized the need to address the past and present issues.The Environmental Justice Law and Advocacy Clinic at Yale Law School provides students with an opportunity to support community-based organizations. Fresno Building Healthy Communities and Friends of Calwa are jointly represented by various legal entities, working to ensure good transportation investments for their communities.These organizations' efforts continue as they await the court's decision, determined to create a more resilient transportation system that equitably distributes benefits and burdens.

The Town Council's decision to change the hours of construction work on Tuesday aimed to ease traffic congestion. However, a prominent land-use attorney's warning led to a quick reversal. This article delves into the details of this controversial situation and its implications.

How a Town Council's Decision Backfired on Construction Projects

Tuesday's Initial Decision

The Town Council unanimously voted on Tuesday to modify the construction work hours during the Palm Beach season. From 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., it was changed to 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. This move was part of their efforts to address traffic congestion. It seemed like a straightforward solution at the time.However, as the days passed, it became clear that this decision had significant consequences. Many active construction projects were already in progress, and their contracts were based on the original work hours. Changing the hours meant disrupting these projects and potentially causing delays and financial losses.

The Warning from the Attorney

Attorney James Crowley, who represents the Royal Poinciana Playhouse construction project and is involved in several other town projects, raised serious concerns. He warned the council that the change would have a disastrous impact on these active construction projects.Crowley pointed out that by changing the hours, they were essentially changing the contracts with the contractors. This would cost time and money, and it could lead to problems and even lawsuits between the contractors and owners. The fact that the change went against the schedules already solidified in the contracts made the situation even more complicated.Beyond the scheduling conflicts, Crowley also noted that the changed hours would cut the working time for contractors by one hour each day. This could have a significant impact on the progress of the projects, especially those with tight timelines.

The Traditional Process Violation

Crowley further emphasized that the council's vote to change the schedule upended the traditional process for changing the town's code of ordinance. Normally, ordinances need to be reviewed at the Ordinance, Rules and Standards Committee or the Planning and Zoning Commission before a town council vote. By bypassing this process, the council was essentially waiving their own code of ordinances.This raised concerns about the legality and procedural correctness of the decision. Town Attorney Joanne O'Connor also pointed out these issues during the Development Review meeting.

The Council's Response

Council members acknowledged the procedural issues and potential legal issues raised by Crowley and O'Connor. They realized that they might have been too hasty in making the decision.Lew Crampton said, "Frankly, we might have been too quick off the mark on this." They decided to defer the change in construction hours to their January meeting. During this time, O'Connor would work with Crowley and others involved in construction to craft an emergency ordinance that would be voted on then.The council voted 4-1, with Ted Cooney voting no, to reopen the discussion on construction work hours and effectively reverse the construction hour modification. They then voted 4-1 along the same lines to defer the discussion to their Jan. 14 meeting.In conclusion, the Town Council's attempt to ease traffic congestion through a change in construction hours led to a complex and controversial situation. The warnings from the attorney and the recognition of procedural issues forced the council to take a step back and reevaluate their decision. This episode highlights the importance of careful consideration and adherence to proper procedures when making significant changes that can have a wide-ranging impact.