Center for Biological Diversity v. Department of Fish and Wildlife

The developers of the Newhall Ranch multi-use development project in northwestern Los Angeles County reached a settlement agreement on September 22, 2017 with groups that had opposed the project to end ongoing litigation and avoid future litigation over the projects. The California Supreme Court ruled in November 2015 that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife lacked substantial evidence to support its conclusion that greenhouse gas emissions associated with the project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act. The settlement agreement indicated that in response to the court’s decision, the developers committed to a “Net Zero Plan” that would, among other things, “result in more than approximately 10,000 solar installations producing approximately 250 million kWh of renewable electricity every year” and “installation of approximately 25,000 electric vehicle chargers within the development and across Los Angeles County, as well as approximately $14 million in subsidies toward the purchase of electric vehicles.”

On remand from the California Supreme Court’s decision finding that the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had not supported its conclusion that the 12,000-acre Newhall Ranch development’s greenhouse gas emissions would not have significant impacts, the California Court of Appeal issued an opinion directing the trial court to take certain actions to direct the course of future environmental review of the project. The appellate court directed the trial court to find that the Department could use State greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals as a significance criterion and could use a hypothetical business-as-usual scenario to evaluate greenhouse gas impacts. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s original finding that there was no substantial evidence that the development’s greenhouse gas emissions would not result in a cumulatively significant environmental impact. The appellate rejected the developer’s argument that it should retain jurisdiction and supervise completion of the environmental review.