Opinion ID: 3158632
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Population Density Comparison

Text: The majority opinion‘s second reason for rejecting the EIR‘s conclusion about the significance of greenhouse gas emissions is both hyper technical and insufficiently deferential to the lead agency‘s expertise. The EIR‘s business-as-usual model assumes a population density equal to that currently existing at ―full build out‖ in Santa Clarita Valley, where the project is located. Because the project is designed to have a higher density than this existing development, it is expected to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from business as usual. The majority opinion criticizes the EIR for failing to correlate this comparison with the business-as-usual comparison used in 4 the Scoping Plan. It notes that, ―[t]o the extent‖ the Scoping Plan‘s business-asusual model is based on areas with higher population densities than Santa Clarita Valley, the EIR‘s comparison of emissions reductions from those demanded in the Scoping Plan would be misleading. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 22.) It is not immediately obvious that there is anything wrong with comparing the Newhall Ranch project with development in the surrounding area. The majority‘s criticism rests on assumptions about the Scoping Plan‘s business-asusual model, but technical details about that model are not in the record. Although the majority opinion views this shortcoming as a lack of substantial evidence, I am not convinced CEQA imposed a burden on the developer or lead agency to research and document a one-to-one correspondence with all details of the Scoping Plan‘s model. Again, the level of evidentiary support the majority demands is inconsistent with our deferential standard of review.