![]() Unless otherwise noted, further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. Code, § 56425 et seq.) The City s general plan sets out two 1 Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq. (§ 30600.) Although most of Banning Ranch is in unincorporated Orange County, all of it falls within the City s “sphere of influence” for zoning and planning purposes. (§ 30001.5.) Most development in the coastal zone requires a coastal development permit. Significantly, it lies in the coastal zone that the Legislature has designated for special protection under the Coastal Act. Banning Ranch, the General Plan, the Coastal Land Use Plan, and ESHA Banning Ranch is a privately owned 400-acre tract of largely undeveloped property, containing both oilfield facilities and wildlife habitat. Because BRC is entitled to relief on its CEQA claims, we need not address the general plan issues. The City s EIR is inadequate because it omitted any consideration of potential ESHA on the project site, as well as ESHA that were already identified. The CEQA dispute centers on whether an EIR must identify areas that might qualify as environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act § 30000 et seq.), and account for those areas in its analysis of project alternatives and mitigation measures. In this court, the parties have briefed and argued both the general plan and CEQA questions. 1 The Court of Appeal agreed that the EIR complied with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).1 However, it reversed on the general plan issue, accepting the City s argument that the plan would be satisfied if the City worked with the commission after project approval, during the process for obtaining a coastal development permit. The trial court found the EIR sufficient, but granted BRC relief on the ground that the general plan required the City to cooperate with the Coastal Commission before approving the project. It alleged two grounds for relief: (1) the environmental impact report (EIR) was inadequate, and (2) the City violated a general plan provision by failing to work with the California Coastal Commission (Coastal Commission) to identify wetlands and habitats. Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) opposed the project and sought a writ of mandate to set aside the approval. 30-2012-00593557 The City of Newport Beach (the City) approved a project for the development of a parcel known as Banning Ranch. ) ) CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al., ) ) Defendants and Appellants ) ) NEWPORT BANNING RANCH LLC et al.,) ) Real Parties in Interest and ) Appellants. The Supreme Court reversed and granted BRC relief on its CEQA claim, holding (1) CEQA requires an EIR to identify areas that might qualify as ESHA under the Coastal Act and (2) the City’s failure to discuss ESHA requirements and impacts was neither insubstantial nor merely technical.įiled 3/30/17 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY, ) ) Plaintiff and Appellant, ) ) v. The Court of Appeal agreed that the EIR complied with CEQA requirements but reversed on the general plan issue. The trial court found the EIR sufficient but concluded that the general plan required the City to cooperate with the Coastal Commission before approving the project. Banning Ranch Conservancy (BRC) sought a writ of mandate to set aside the approval, alleging (1) the EIR was inadequate, and (2) the City violated a general plan provision by failing to work with the California Coastal Commission to identify wetlands and habitats. The City of Newport Beach approved a project for the development of a parcel known as Banning Beach. This California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) dispute centered on whether an environmental impact report (EIR) must identify areas that might qualify as environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA) under the California Coastal Act and account for those areas in its analysis of mitigation measures and project alternatives.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |