Global Warming Fuzzy Math & Newhall Ranch

Image not recoveredlandmark-300x127.png

Kudos to The Signal for reporting on some of the technical details regarding the new draft Newhall Ranch EIR and in particular their reporting about greenhouse gas emissions.

Once completed, Landmark Village’s residents will create an estimated annual emission of about 20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s equal to 1 percent of the annual emissions of a coal-fired power plant, based on Environmental Protection Agency data.

But the report notes that philosophical questions arise as to whether new emissions are created by economic and population growth, or if projects such as Newhall Ranch simply accommodate such growth.

The climate-change section was added to make sure the project will not impede state goals for greenhouse gas-emission reductions, based on the 2006 Global Warming Solutions Act. The report found that it won’t: The project’s emissions are 31-percent below a “no action taken” scenario.

The act requires a reduction of 29 percent or more from that scenario.

So if I’m understanding this correctly, once built out, Landmark Village and its 1000+ homes will actually produce 31% less GHG than if nothing was built there. Is that what the “no action taken scenario” means? How can that be?

As for the “philosophical questions,” that sounds like an escape clause. I suppose it works though; you could argue that greenhouse gases are being emitted by people all the time; developing Landmark Village technically doesn’t add to that, it just moves the emitters from one part of the planet to the other.

But efficient homes are one thing, what about all the new car trips this project will generate? What about all the GHGs emitted by people driving to work in Los Angeles? Wouldn’t that be considered additional emissions?

Last year, the Department of Fish & Game released its EIS/EIR for Newhall Ranch saying that “mobile sources (ie cars)” in Newhall Ranch would emit 162,001 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide per year. But, it noted, the average vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for Newhall Ranch, once built out, would be nearly five miles (7.7 miles per trip on average) less than the average home based trip (12.5 miles) others in the Santa Clarita Valley take. And it said (and this is one of Newhall land’s major talking points) that trip lengths will likely be reduced as Newhall Ranch “would provide local shopping and employment opportunities for existing residents.”

The briefing book posted below notes that Newhall Land is setting aside some right-of-way for a possible Metrolink expansion, but building rail to that part of the valley is probably a pipe dream. Indeed, most of Newhall Ranch’s transportation plans are dependent on a wider Highway 126, Interstate 5, and the Cross Valley Connector.

Suffice it to say calculating GHG emissions is a tricky science with many different variables and assumptions. Way beyond my skillset, so I’m hoping the new EIR will shed additional light on GHG from vehicles and other “mobile sources”.

Comments (4)

Need for Involved CitizenryFebruary 4, 2010 at 11:08 am

I wonder how they can really say that emissions will be reduced by folks working locally. Will they have a huge set aside of low income housing for industrial center types of folks? How can they ensure that the high paying local jobs necessary to allow those to afford homes in the Ranch will actually be generated and exist? Seems like much of the analysis is based on this flawed assumption.

Spineflower2February 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Regarding employment for NR residents… NLF claims that most of the jobs will be within NewhalL Ranch, and a vast majority will communte within the SCV. Thsi is clearly baloney, and runs against all demographic and historical informaton abotu income, housng prices, commute patterns, etc. You can get anY EIR and study you want if you pay the right cosultant the right amount of money. The County still lets the APPLICANT (i.e., NLF) choose the EIR consultant. This is the fox guarding the henhouse. NR is a wolf in green sheeps clothing, and the sheepskin dye is being drenched on it pretty thick these days. By the way, the water study portion of their EIR got thrown out by an appeals court. More lies from the paid-off EIR consultant get exposed…

CoastalSageFebruary 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm

There’s a basic concept called a “jobs housing balance”. In its simplest form, the principle says that the actual air pollution from commuting to and from an outlying subdivision must be calculated based upon the potential cost of the new homes, and the actual locations where jobs which will support payments on a 30 year mortgage are located. Assume, for argument’s sake, that the average home in Landmark Village will cost $400,000. How many new, permanent jobs will the project create which will allow the project’s residents to live nearby? In theory, the commuting to and from the new, high paying jobs in the new project should not be “counted” for air quality calculations for the new project. How many existing jobs in the general locale (i.e. Santa Clarita Valley) paying enough to support a mortgage on a $400,000 home are currently vacant, or held by people who commute into the Santa Clarita Valley. In theory, the new project occupants’ commuting to and from the unoccupied high paying jobs and the high paying jobs held by outsiders should not be “counted” for air quality calculations for the new project. Which brings us to reality. There are very few houses newly built in the Santa Clarita Valley which cost as little as $400,000. There are even fewer permanent, high paying jobs to be created by the project, or held by outsiders who might move to this new project. All of that brings us back to reality. In the Santa Clarita Valley, expensive developments (e.g. must build own sewer plant, must buy expensive water supply, must build costly infrastructure) create expensive homes. By and large, only people who commute southward to the San Fernado/Glendale/Burbank area, Downtown LA and West LA will be able to afford to buy a new home in Landmark Village. Not only will their commuting in their automobiles create additional air pollution, the clogging of southbound routes out of SCV with more traffic will greatly add to air pollution created by the cars of existing commuters. Forget greenhouse gas emissions. Ordinary air pollution will increase dramatically as Newhall Ranch and the 30,000+ other new housing units approved for the SCV are built. SCV’s jobs housing balance is way upside down, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Frankly, the majority of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has absolutely no concern about air quality in the SCV. They never have and they never will.

Jim FarleyFebruary 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm

Thank you Coastal Sage for clarifying that we need to look at this for the local and not the global impact. There are more and more reasons to not believe the theory of man made climate change that will lead to disaster. This project is bad simply form the standpoint of local polution and the traffic it will create on I-5 over Weldon Summit. Forget Global Warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose this.

Need for Involved CitizenryFebruary 4, 2010 at 11:08 am
I wonder how they can really say that emissions will be reduced by folks working locally. Will they have a huge set aside of low income housing for industrial center types of folks? How can they ensure that the high paying local jobs necessary to allow those to afford homes in the Ranch will actually be generated and exist? Seems like much of the analysis is based on this flawed assumption.
Spineflower2February 4, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Regarding employment for NR residents… NLF claims that most of the jobs will be within NewhalL Ranch, and a vast majority will communte within the SCV. Thsi is clearly baloney, and runs against all demographic and historical informaton abotu income, housng prices, commute patterns, etc. You can get anY EIR and study you want if you pay the right cosultant the right amount of money. The County still lets the APPLICANT (i.e., NLF) choose the EIR consultant. This is the fox guarding the henhouse. NR is a wolf in green sheeps clothing, and the sheepskin dye is being drenched on it pretty thick these days. By the way, the water study portion of their EIR got thrown out by an appeals court. More lies from the paid-off EIR consultant get exposed…
CoastalSageFebruary 4, 2010 at 4:43 pm
There’s a basic concept called a “jobs housing balance”. In its simplest form, the principle says that the actual air pollution from commuting to and from an outlying subdivision must be calculated based upon the potential cost of the new homes, and the actual locations where jobs which will support payments on a 30 year mortgage are located. Assume, for argument’s sake, that the average home in Landmark Village will cost $400,000. How many new, permanent jobs will the project create which will allow the project’s residents to live nearby? In theory, the commuting to and from the new, high paying jobs in the new project should not be “counted” for air quality calculations for the new project. How many existing jobs in the general locale (i.e. Santa Clarita Valley) paying enough to support a mortgage on a $400,000 home are currently vacant, or held by people who commute into the Santa Clarita Valley. In theory, the new project occupants’ commuting to and from the unoccupied high paying jobs and the high paying jobs held by outsiders should not be “counted” for air quality calculations for the new project. Which brings us to reality. There are very few houses newly built in the Santa Clarita Valley which cost as little as $400,000. There are even fewer permanent, high paying jobs to be created by the project, or held by outsiders who might move to this new project. All of that brings us back to reality. In the Santa Clarita Valley, expensive developments (e.g. must build own sewer plant, must buy expensive water supply, must build costly infrastructure) create expensive homes. By and large, only people who commute southward to the San Fernado/Glendale/Burbank area, Downtown LA and West LA will be able to afford to buy a new home in Landmark Village. Not only will their commuting in their automobiles create additional air pollution, the clogging of southbound routes out of SCV with more traffic will greatly add to air pollution created by the cars of existing commuters. Forget greenhouse gas emissions. Ordinary air pollution will increase dramatically as Newhall Ranch and the 30,000+ other new housing units approved for the SCV are built. SCV’s jobs housing balance is way upside down, and will continue to be for the forseeable future. Frankly, the majority of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has absolutely no concern about air quality in the SCV. They never have and they never will.
Jim FarleyFebruary 4, 2010 at 6:42 pm
Thank you Coastal Sage for clarifying that we need to look at this for the local and not the global impact. There are more and more reasons to not believe the theory of man made climate change that will lead to disaster. This project is bad simply form the standpoint of local polution and the traffic it will create on I-5 over Weldon Summit. Forget Global Warming, there are plenty of other reasons to oppose this.