1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 (
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 (
The EIR reviewed by the Supreme Court followed earlier EIRs certified by Los Angeles County in 1999 and 2003 in connection with the County’s 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:
Link to GHG section:
Supreme Court Decision:

4. Main Issues of the Case
Whether the EIR appropriately determined that the project would not significantly impact the environment through greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions;
Whether a mitigation measure that authorized the take of a protected species was appropriate under the Endangered Species Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
Whether comments made during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) comment period were sufficient to exhaust administrative remedies under CEQA.

5. 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

6. 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

7. CARB Scoping Plan
Plan to achieve “maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective reductions in GHG emissions by 2020”
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels means cutting approximately 30% from business-as-usual emission levels projected for 2020, or about 15% from today‘s levels
Provides approaches and goals to meet reduction goals
Energy efficiency, statewide renewable energy, cap-and-trade program, policies for clean transportation programs, etc.

8. “Business-As-Usual”
Represents the emissions that would otherwise be expected to occur in the absence of any GHG actions
No conservation or regulatory efforts beyond what was in place at time of forecast
No change in vehicle emissions/fleet mix over time
No change in energy generation

9. GHG Thresholds
No industry-wide GHG threshold – Thresholds are ultimately determined by the lead agency
CEQA allows qualitative or quantitative analysis
CEQA Guidelines Section and (c) requires analysis and mitigation of significant GHG emissions
Section provides criteria for qualified GHG reduction plans (CAPs)
Allows tiering and streamlining of future development projects

10. 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 cumulatively considerable
Analyze GHG emissions from specific actions within the area
Identify measures that could be implemented by projects within the area which could reach the specified emission level
Monitor the effectiveness of the plan
Be adopted in a public process after environmental review

11. 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 (challenged and reinstated)
SJVAPCD: Reduce emissions by 29%, use Best Performance Standards to reduce GHG emissions, or comply with an approved GHG plan (statewide, regional, or local) or mitigation program
SLOAPCD: 1,150 MTCO2eq
San Diego County: 2,500 MTCO2eq

12. 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 a net reduction from existing oil well emissions
GHG Analysis Conclusions:
Project emissions (269,053 MTCO2eq) not significant due to the absence of scientific and factual information regarding when particular quantities of GHG emissions become significant
GHG emissions likely would not impede AB 32’s goals, less than significant for CEQA purposes
No agency adopted applicable threshold

13. Supreme Court
EIR’s use of AB 32 reduction goals as threshold of significance was consistent with the broad guidance provided by section of CEQA Guidelines
EIR’s less than significant finding was not supported by substantial evidence
"Nothing DFW or Newhall have cited in the administrative record indicates the required percentage reduction from business as usual is the same for an individual project as for the entire state population and economy.“

14. Supreme Court
EIR does not explain how project level reductions correlate with statewide reductions
Court: difficult to justify 269,053 MTCO2eq could be less than significant

15. Dissenting Opinions
Not upholding the EIR is contrary to the deferential standard of review (burden is on the plaintiffs)
Majority’s 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 agency’s conclusion
No assurance it is even possible to calculate how a statewide goal corresponds to specific quantitative 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 indicates that land use driven sectors only expected to demonstrate 26.2% GHG emission reduction
EIR is a disclosure document, identified impacts and mitigation, informed decision makers
Project was approved by 8 agencies (DFW, Army Corps of Engineers, USFWS, LARWQCB, LAFCO, LA County Regional Planning Commission, and the LA County Board of Supervisors)

16. 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)

17. Climate Action Plans Complementary to General Plans
GP and CAP horizon years and growth projections should be consistent

18. 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