Implications of the Newhall Ranch Decision for Climate Change Analyses
An aerial view of the Santa Clara River, which is the last major free-flowing river in Southern California. A six-mile stretch of the river is included in plans for the Newhall Ranch development. (KPCC, Implications of the Newhall Ranch Decision for Climate Change Analyses Newhall Ranch 12,000 acres 20,885 dwelling units 7 schools
5 million sq. ft. of Industrial Business Park 3 Fire Stations Regional Park Golf Course Water Reclamation Plant 6,000 Acres of permanent open space ~58,000 residents Entitlement and EIR History
March 1999 Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Program EIR certified by L.A. County The County's approvals were subsequently challenged and the Court set aside a portion of the approvals and required additional analyses May 2003 Revised Additional Analyses (and previous EIR) were certified October 2003 Trial Court discharged the writ of mandate December 2003 Appeal, settlement reached in 2004, appeal dismissed June Newhall Ranch Resource Management and Development Plan (RMDP) and the Spineflower Conservation Plan (SCP)Final EIS/EIR certified by CDFW (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=NewhallRanchFinal) October 2012 EIS/EIR certification overturned by L.A. County Superior Court March 2014 Reinstated by 2nd District Court of Appeal November 2015 Supreme Court Rejected EIS/EIR (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S PDF) The EIR reviewed by the Supreme Court followed earlier EIRs certified by Los Angeles County in 1999 and 2003 in connection with the Countys primary project approvals. The new EIR was a joint EIR/EIS prepared by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to evaluate the impacts of several additional project approvals, including a resource management plan, a conservation plan for the endangered spineflower plant, a streambed alteration agreement, and two permits for the incidental take of protected species. Link to Newhall Ranch Specific Plan Program EIS/EIR: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/documents/ContextDocs.aspx?cat=NewhallRanchFinal Link to GHG section: Supreme Court Decision: Main Issues of the Case Whether the EIR appropriately determined that the project wouldnot significantly impact the environment through greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions; Whether a mitigation measure that authorized the take of aprotected species was appropriate under the Endangered SpeciesAct and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and Whether comments made during the National Environmental PolicyAct (NEPA) comment period were sufficient to exhaust administrativeremedies under CEQA. GHGs trap heat in the atmosphere
Common GHGs for land use projects are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) Other GHGs associated with refrigerants and industrial processes Primary GHG Sources: Vehicles Energy and Water consumption Solid waste decomposition CO2 Equivalents (Co2eq): used to compare emissions from various GHGs based upon global warming potential GHG Legislation Executive Order S-3-05 (2005)
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) (2006) By 2020, California is required to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels Executive Order B (2015) Added intermediate goal: By 2030, reduce GHG emissions to 40% below 1990 levels CARB Scoping Plan Plan to achieve maximum technologically feasible andcost-effective reductions in GHG emissions by 2020 Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels meanscutting approximately 30% from business-as-usualemission levels projected for 2020, or about 15% fromtodays levels Provides approaches and goals to meet reduction goals Energy efficiency, statewide renewable energy, cap-and-tradeprogram, policies for clean transportation programs, etc. Business-As-Usual Represents the emissions that would otherwise be expected to occur in theabsence of any GHG actions No conservation or regulatory efforts beyond what was in place at time offorecast No change in vehicle emissions/fleet mix over time No change in energy generation GHG Thresholds No industry-wide GHG threshold Thresholds are ultimatelydetermined by the lead agency CEQA allows qualitative or quantitative analysis CEQA Guidelines Section and (c) requires analysis andmitigation of significant GHG emissions Section provides criteria for qualified GHG reduction plans (CAPs) Allows tiering and streamlining of future development projects CEQA Guidelines Section Criteria for qualified GHG reduction plans Quantify existing and future GHG emissions in a defined area Establish a level where contribution of GHG emissions is not cumulativelyconsiderable Analyze GHG emissions from specific actions within the area Identify measures that could be implemented by projects within the area which couldreach the specified emission level Monitor the effectiveness of the plan Be adopted in a public process after environmental review Air District Thresholds
SCAQMD proposed thresholds: 3,000 MTCO2eq, 4.1 MTCO2eq/service population(residents and employees) (note: adopted only for projects where the SCAQMD is lead agency) BAAQMD: 1,100 MTCO2eq, 4.6 MTCO2eq/service population (challengedand reinstated) SJVAPCD: Reduce emissions by 29%, use Best Performance Standards to reduceGHG emissions, or comply with an approved GHG plan (statewide, regional, orlocal) or mitigation program SLOAPCD: 1,150 MTCO2eq San Diego County: 2,500 MTCO2eq Newhall Ranch EIR Projected GHG emissions at full build-out: 269,053 MTCO2eq. 31% below business-as-usual estimate (390,046 MTCO2eq) Conservatively, did not include anet reduction from existing oil well emissions GHG Analysis Conclusions: Project emissions (269,053 MTCO2eq) not significant due to the absence of scientific and factualinformation regarding when particular quantities of GHG emissions become significant GHG emissions likely would not impede AB 32s goals, less than significant for CEQA purposes No agency adopted applicable threshold Supreme Court EIRs use of AB 32 reduction goals as threshold of significance wasconsistent with the broad guidance provided by section ofCEQA Guidelines EIRs less than significant finding was not supported by substantialevidence "Nothing DFW or Newhall have cited in the administrative record indicates the requiredpercentage reduction from business as usual is the same for an individual project as for theentire state population and economy. Supreme Court EIR does not explain how project level reductions correlate withstatewide reductions Court: difficult to justify 269,053 MTCO2eq could be less thansignificant Dissenting Opinions Not upholding the EIR is contrary to the deferential standard of review (burden is on theplaintiffs) Majoritys conclusion conflicts with approval of using AB 32 reduction as a threshold Approval of the methodology should require the court to defer to the lead agencysconclusion No assurance it is even possible to calculate how a statewide goal corresponds to specificquantitative efficiency measures for individual projects Agencies could have used an even lower goal: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) analysis of the Scoping Plan indicatesthat land use driven sectors only expected to demonstrate 26.2% GHG emission reduction EIR is a disclosure document, identified impacts and mitigation, informed decisionmakers Project was approved by 8 agencies (DFW, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, LARWQCB,LAFCO, LA County Regional Planning Commission, and the LA County Board ofSupervisors) Implications Evidence based compliance show your work
Other Thresholds (bright line, service population) Compliance with performance based standards and BMPs EIRs may need to consider longer term targets (Executive Orders S-3-05, B ) Projects should incorporate good planning practices pedestrian linkages,mix of uses, other methods to minimize vehicle trips and trip lengths Geographically Specific GHG Reduction Plans (CAP) Climate Action Plans Complementary to General Plans
GP and CAP horizon years and growth projectionsshould be consistent Environmental Sciences Manager 949.855.3612 egtorres@mbakerintl.com
Thank You Eddie Torres, INCE Environmental Sciences Manager Achilles Malisos Manager of Air and Noise Studies