SIERRA CLUB et al. PRIOR HISTORY: Superior Court of San Francisco County, No. James Robertson II, Judge. Court of Appeal, First Dist., Div. California. Coastal Com., 1. Cal. 1st Dist., 2. COUNSEL: Law Offices of Frank P.
Homepage - goals - great lakes - overview. Great Lakes Program: Overview. Explore, enjoy, and protect the planet. Federal Consistency Determination submitted to the Delaware Coastal Management Program for. 2013: Delaware City Refinery's Marine Vapor Recovery permit hearing, Sierra Club. Case opinion for CA Supreme Court SIERRA CLUB v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION. Read the Court's full decision on FindLaw.
Horton, Phyl van Ammers, Meredith Lobel- Angel and Edward. Grutzmacher for Plaintiffs and Appellants. Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State. Solicitor General, Richard M.
Frank, Chief Assistant Attorney General, J. Matthew. Rodriguez, Assistant Attorney General, Jamee Jordan Patterson and Hayley. Peterson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Defendant and Respondent. Latham & Watkins, Robert C. Repking for Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
The New Orleans Group of the Delta Chapter (Louisiana) of the Sierra Club Protecting New Orleans' Environment: For Our Families, For Our Future. Sierra Club’s construction of section 30200, subdivision (a). This Thursday, October 3, 7:00 pm, “Dolphins as Sentinels for Human Health”, is the topic for our Sierra Club meeting at the Baruch Auditorium on 284 Calhoun Street. The speakers below all conduct research that is directly. Sierra Club Outings were. The North Carolina Chapter of the Sierra Club has a long. And our outings program has long served the dual purpose of. San Diego ICO is an all-volunteer program of the Sierra Club dedicated to providing outdoor experiences to low-income youth who would not. Sierra Club Activities in Coastal North County: Del. The Sierra Club has chapters throughout the United States and Canada that offer opportunities for local involvement, activism and outings. Links to chapter sites. Current priority campaigns: Sprawl Solutions, Protecting.
JUDGES: Chin, J., expressing the unanimous view. OPINIONBY: CHIN OPINION: CHIN, J.- -This case requires us to consider the.
California Coastal Commission's (Commission) exercise of permit authority under. California Coastal Act of 1. Coastal Act) (Pub. In. issuing a permit in this case, the Commission found that as conditioned, the. Coastal Act's policies and requirements. The opponents of the permit. Commission. based on an incorrect construction of the Coastal Act, improperly refused to.
The Court of Appeal upheld the Commission's reading. Coastal Act and its decision.
We affirm the Court of Appeal's judgment. All of the new houses. To access 8. 5 of the houses, Catellus proposed to.
Street A- -that would descend from the top of the bluff, down its. State Highway 1. The bluff face is within the coastal zone, as would. Street A. Construction of Street A would require. Catellus also. proposed to locate related infrastructure under Street A, including a storm. In. carrying out the proposed project, Catellus also proposed to construct a public.
Because part of the. Street A, involves . After preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) for purposes of.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (. At the same time. Sierra Club, Spirit of the Sage Council, and Ballona Ecosystem. Education Project (collectively, Sierra Club) appealed the City's coastal. Commission pursuant to section 3. The Commission made extensive findings in support of its.
City of Los. Angeles (2. Cal. 4th 7. 33 . As here relevant, Sierra Club alleged that. Commission should have denied the permit request because the project as a.
Costal Act's . Regarding scenic views, Sierra Club alleged. Regarding ESHA's, Sierra Club.
In support of its position, Sierra Club argued. Coastal Act authorizes the Commission to deny a permit request. Relying on section. Catellus argued during those proceedings that . As relevant here, it found . In response, the Commission maintained that section 3. Agreeing with the Commission and.
Catellus and relying on section 3. Sierra Club's. argument that the Commission was . More specifically, Sierra Club asserts that the. Commission should have denied the permit request based on . The former provision. The Coastal Act, section. That. subject is addressed in section 3.
Regarding such a project, that section places two limits on the. Commission: (1) it may not .
Nor does it violate the first limitation, unless it considers the impacts. In its findings, the Commission stressed that the distance the proposed. It divides the part of the project within the coastal zone into.
It required Catellus to implement a water quality. Finally, it required. Catellus to execute and record deed restrictions dedicating to open space the. The Commission's. Coastal Act and the parties do not.
However, having found the proposed. Given. the Commission's finding that the proposed development within the coastal zone.
Coastal Act, a denial of the permit. Thus, if substantial evidence supports. Commission may properly deny a permit request based on impacts. This project is too dense, and as a result contains almost no. The. Coastal Act was first enacted in 1. Senate Bill No. As.
Senate Bill No. 1. Coastal Act provided that. Sess.) as amended June 1. However, this provision was. Sess.). as amended Aug. Instead, the Legislature added section 3. On its face, this provision said.
Commission should consider impacts within the. However, even before.
Governor signed the Coastal Act into law, the Legislature recognized this potential. On August 3. 1, 1. Senate. Bill No. 1. Governor, the Senate published a. Senator Smith, the author of the legislation, to the Secretary of. Senate. By including this letter in the Senate Journal, it. I have made these same statements.
Senate and Assembly Committees. Speaker Mc. Carthy made similar.
Assembly. The area within which the provisions of. The planning and regulatory requirements of this bill do not. The area outside the specifically mapped.
The only charge to. Section 3. 02. 00) that where their activities outside the. This provision can. No additional requirements are required or intended by. Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - . Although we. generally do not consider the understanding of individual legislators in construing.
Senator Smith is relevant because it purports to. Legislature during consideration of Senate.
Bill No. Sess.) and because it was printed with the. Senate's consent pursuant to Senator Smith's motion. Gen., Indexed Letter, No. In August 1. 97. 7, the Attorney General issued an opinion in response.
An analysis of the 1. Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Wildlife explained. The Attorney General has issued an opinion stating. Other legislative analyses described the amendment's. Sess.) as amended May 8, 1. Sen. Sess.) as amended Aug. Sess.) May 8, 1. 97.
A contrary. conclusion would be inconsistent with this intended division of authority; it. Coastal Act, effectively allow the Commission to overrule the decisions of. Democratic Caucus, Analysis of Senate Bill No.
Specifically. Sierra Club cites express legislative findings that the coastal zone . First, these broad. Coastal Act cannot overcome the. Legislature has. specifically addressed the limits of both the Coastal Act's reach and the. Commission's power.
Second, Sierra Club's construction would effectively. Commission, simply because part of a proposed project. Sierra Club. cites reflect no legislative intent to effect such a transfer of control. By. contrast, statements in the relevant legislative history discussed above. Legislature had precisely the opposite intent and envisioned. Coastal Act, . 1.
This. conclusion is consistent with the fact, as noted above, that in passing the. Coastal Act, the Legislature considered, but rejected, proposed language that.
Sierra. Club's construction. Sess.) as amended June.
In reply, Sierra Club concedes that the. Initially, the. relevant legislative history supports the Commission's view that the. Legislature did not intend the second sentence of section 3. Commission. As noted above, the letter of intent published. Senate Journal in connection with the Coastal Act's passage explained.
This discussion suggests that the Legislature. Commission, as part of carrying out. Legislature established in section. Supporting this conclusion is the absence of anything in the 1.
Commission's authority over activities outside the. As explained above, the. Legislature's intent to. Commission and other local public entities. Marina City Properties, Inc. As noted. above, Sierra Club concedes that the second sentence of section 3.
According to Sierra Club, CEQA requires the Commission to . On the contrary, several provisions of CEQA preclude us from using that. Commission's authority beyond the limits set forth in the.
Coastal Act. Section 2. The Legislature went on to explain that section 2. As these comments demonstrate, the. Legislature passed section 2.
Sierra. Club's now asks us to do: use CEQA as tool to expand the Commission's authority. Coastal Act's express limits.
Sierra Club's CEQA. Although the Commission relies on sections 2. Sierra Club simply ignores these statutes; we are. Sierra Club's CEQA.
As relevant to Sierra Club's. CZMA requires . 8.
In requesting federal approval, the Commission. Sierra Club is correct that the. Commission's issuance of a coastal development permit constitutes its CZMA.
California's coastal. However, that fact does not, as Sierra Club asserts. Commission must base its permit decisions on whether proposed. One of the administrative regulations implementing CZMA. California (1. 98.
U. S. According to those regulations, CZMA's requirement that a state. It is up to the State to decide in what manner and to what extent. State agency will be involved in actual program implementation. As support for its assertion, Sierra Club relies on. Sierra Club's counsel recounted his telephone conversation with . First, they depend on evidence that is not part of the.
By statute, review of the Commission's decision to grant. Superior Court (1.
Cal. App. 4th 9. 3, 1. City of Los Angeles (1.
Cal. 3d 6. 8, 7. 9, fn. Superior Court (1. Cal. 3d 7. 68, 7. Superior Court, supra, 5. Cal. App. 4th at p.
In the superior court, Catellus objected to the. Code of Civil Procedure section 1.
The record does not reflect a ruling on the objection. The Court. of Appeal's decision is silent regarding the issue.- - - - - - - - - - - - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - . Second, Sierra Club's arguments ask us to.
In State of California, we applied this rule to judicial. California Coastal Zone Conservation. Commission. California Coastal Com. Sierra Club never objected during Commission. Commissioners failed to review the City's EIR.
Although. Sierra Club made this objection in its reply briefs in the superior court and. Court of Appeal, it did not argue that reversal was required for this. Rather, as Sierra Club explains in its opening brief here, in the trial. Court of Appeal, it raised this factual issue only as a basis for.
Commission from relying on the City's EIR to support its. Rules of Court, rule 2.
Poway Unified. School Dist. P. 2d 6. 24. 2d 5.
P. 2d 1. 28. 0. We also express no opinion as to whether any such. Of. Forestry (1. 99. Cal. 4th 1. 21. 5, 1. Regents of. University of California (1.
Cal. 4th 1. 11. 2, 1. J.. Kennard, J., Baxter, J., Werdegar, J., Brown, J., and Moreno, J., concurred.
Sierra Club - Angeles Chapter. Angeles Chapter home National Sierra Club Site Map Contact Us.
Copyright . The Angeles Chapter spans Los Angeles and Orange Counties in Southern California, with an extensive program of hikes/hiking, national and international travel, local conservation campaigns, political action, and programs for people of all ages.