Calironia Court Cases - Case Law from CA - California Court

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		California Case Law & California Court Opinions - California Law
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -CLICK HERE

This court case was taken from the California Court's web site. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

Filed 5/9/03

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
CERTIFIED FOR PARTIAL PUBLICATION*

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

SIERRA CLUB et al.,

Plaintiffs and Appellants,

A100194
v.

CALIFORNIA COASTAL
(San Francisco County
COMMISSION,
Super. Ct. No. 315686, 318780)

Defendant and Respondent;
CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP,

Real Party in Interest and
Respondent.

BY THE COURT:

The opinion filed April 11, 2003 is modified as follows: In Part II.C.3., on
page 19, footnote four is modified by deleting the current text, which reads:
4 No published Attorney General Opinion spells out this position. At oral
argument, counsel for the Commission explained that before the 1978 amendment,
the Commission had received an informal opinion letter advising it that it could
exercise jurisdiction over the entirety of any project that partially overlapped the
coastal zone.

*
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules 976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is
certified for publication with the exception of parts II.B and all its subparts and part III.

and replacing it with the following:

4 The informal opinion letter addressed the question we face: "To what extent
may the coastal commissions assert jurisdiction over developments that take place on
parcels of land that lie partly inside and partly outside the inland coastal zone
boundary?" (Cal. Atty. Gen., Indexed Letter, No. SO IL 77/20, August 26, 1977,
p. 2.) The opinion letter concluded in part, "It is submitted that the Legislature
intended to authorize the commission to deny permits on the basis that the portion of
a development outside the coastal zone would have adverse environmental impacts
inside the coastal zone." (Id. at p. 6.) This is precisely the position the Sierra Club
now urges upon us.

Appellant's petition for rehearing filed April 29, 2003, is denied.

Appellant's request for judicial notice is granted as to Exhibits 1 and 2 and denied
as to Exhibit 3.

This modification effects no change in the judgment.

2