LOS ANGELES—The California Supreme Court decision that was handed down earlier this year involving Newhall Ranch is still giving land use attorneys headaches. The decision rejected the support the developer showed to analyze greenhouse gas emissions, but did not specify acceptable support or methods of analysis. Months later, land use attorneys, like Scott Birkey, a partner at Cox, Castle & Nicholson, are looking for more guidance.
“It is still a black box,” Birkey tells GlobeSt.com. “We have some sideboards of how to evaluate greenhouse gas emission in our CEQA documents; that's what Newhall Ranch has done. However, it doesn't tell us specifically exactly how the court wants it done. In some ways, it actually raises more questions than it answers even though it gives you these sideboards.”
While the court case involved Newhall Ranch, it was a dispute between CBD vs. CDFW. The Newhall Ranch developer used the state mandate to test for greenhouse gas emissions, but failed to show adequate support; however the court never defined what that adequate support would be. “The record in the case did not have enough support that bridged the gap between applying the state level BAU 29% reduction to a project specific land-use development context,” says Birkey. “It is that problem of bridging the gap that Newhall Ranch points us to. The court leaves open the question: had they bridge this properly, would they have been able to support (their findings). The court doesn't really give us enough direction on how exactly that bridging would have been done. It is really still up in the air.”
While the court did provide some guidance on other issues, like how to show analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, even those guidelines are unclear. “The court did offer some other thoughts on how you might do you GHG analysis, but even there no clear direction,” adds Birkey. “Following this case, we are all just scratching our heads trying to figure out how we should be handling this case. Unfortunately we don't have any further guidance. There is no subsequent case law and no legislative fix. At the moment it is still a black box.”
LOS ANGELES—The California Supreme Court decision that was handed down earlier this year involving Newhall Ranch is still giving land use attorneys headaches. The decision rejected the support the developer showed to analyze greenhouse gas emissions, but did not specify acceptable support or methods of analysis. Months later, land use attorneys, like Scott Birkey, a partner at
“It is still a black box,” Birkey tells GlobeSt.com. “We have some sideboards of how to evaluate greenhouse gas emission in our CEQA documents; that's what Newhall Ranch has done. However, it doesn't tell us specifically exactly how the court wants it done. In some ways, it actually raises more questions than it answers even though it gives you these sideboards.”
While the court case involved Newhall Ranch, it was a dispute between CBD vs. CDFW. The Newhall Ranch developer used the state mandate to test for greenhouse gas emissions, but failed to show adequate support; however the court never defined what that adequate support would be. “The record in the case did not have enough support that bridged the gap between applying the state level BAU 29% reduction to a project specific land-use development context,” says Birkey. “It is that problem of bridging the gap that Newhall Ranch points us to. The court leaves open the question: had they bridge this properly, would they have been able to support (their findings). The court doesn't really give us enough direction on how exactly that bridging would have been done. It is really still up in the air.”
While the court did provide some guidance on other issues, like how to show analysis of greenhouse gas emissions, even those guidelines are unclear. “The court did offer some other thoughts on how you might do you GHG analysis, but even there no clear direction,” adds Birkey. “Following this case, we are all just scratching our heads trying to figure out how we should be handling this case. Unfortunately we don't have any further guidance. There is no subsequent case law and no legislative fix. At the moment it is still a black box.”
Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.
Once you are an ALM Digital Member, you’ll receive:
- Breaking commercial real estate news and analysis, on-site and via our newsletters and custom alerts
- Educational webcasts, white papers, and ebooks from industry thought leaders
- Critical coverage of the property casualty insurance and financial advisory markets on our other ALM sites, PropertyCasualty360 and ThinkAdvisor
Already have an account? Sign In Now
*May exclude premium content© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Kelsi Maree Borland
