Title: Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S227473
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: March 30, 2017

1 
Filed 3/30/17 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Appellant, 
) 
 
 
) 
S227473 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 4/3 G049691 
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al., 
) 
 
) 
Orange County 
 
Defendants and Appellants; 
) 
Super. Ct. No. 30-2012-00593557 
 
 
) 
NEWPORT BANNING RANCH LLC et al.,) 
 
 
) 
 
Real Parties in Interest and 
) 
 
Appellants. 
) 
 
____________________________________) 
 
The City of Newport Beach (the City) approved a project for the 
development of a parcel known as Banning Ranch.  Banning Ranch Conservancy 
(BRC) opposed the project and sought a writ of mandate to set aside the approval.  
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.  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. 
 
2 
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. 
In this court, the parties have briefed and argued both the general plan and 
CEQA questions.  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.  We 
hold that CEQA so requires.  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.  Because BRC is entitled to relief on its CEQA claims, we need 
not address the general plan issues. 
I.  BACKGROUND 
A.  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.  Significantly, it 
lies in the coastal zone that the Legislature has designated for special protection 
under the Coastal Act.  (§ 30001.5.)  Most development in the coastal zone 
requires a coastal development permit.  (§ 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.  (See Gov. Code, § 56425 et seq.)  The City‟s general plan sets out two 
                                              
1  
Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.  Unless otherwise noted, 
further statutory references are to the Public Resources Code. 
 
3 
alternative goals for the area.  The preferred option is community open space, with 
development limited to nature education facilities and a park.  The second 
alternative would allow construction of up to 1,375 residential units, 75,000 square 
feet of retail facilities, and 75 hotel rooms.  As to both alternatives, the plan calls 
for consolidating the oil operations and restoring wetlands and wildlife habitats.  A 
general plan “strategy” titled “Coordination with State and Federal Agencies” 
requires the City to “[w]ork with appropriate state and federal agencies to identify 
wetlands and habitats to be preserved and/or restored and those on which 
development will be permitted.”  (City of Newport Beach, General Plan (July 
2006) ch. 3, Land Use Element, p. 3-76.) 
In addition to having a general plan, every local government in the coastal 
zone must submit a local coastal program for Coastal Commission approval.  The 
program consists of a coastal land use plan (CLUP) and implementing regulations.  
The CLUP may be completed first, with regulations developed later.  (Yost v. 
Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 566; § 30500.)  The City had yet to enact its 
regulatory component, or to adopt procedures for issuing coastal development 
permits, and thus did not have a certified local coastal program.  (See § 30600, 
subd. (b)(1).)  Accordingly, the Coastal Commission exercised permitting 
authority over development on Banning Ranch.  (See § 30600, subd. (c).) 
The City did have a certified CLUP, but chose to exclude Banning Ranch 
from its scope.  The general plan explains that “Banning Ranch is a Deferred 
Certification Area . . . due to unresolved issues related to land use, public access, 
and the protection of coastal resources.”  (City of Newport Beach, General Plan, 
supra, ch. 13, Implementation Program, p. 13-8.)  The CLUP defines ESHA in the 
same terms as section 30107.5 of the Coastal Act:  “any area in which plant or 
animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their 
special nature or role in an ecosystem . . . which could be easily disturbed or 
 
4 
degraded by human activities and developments” is an environmentally sensitive 
habitat area.  (City of Newport Beach, Local Coastal Program (Dec. 13, 2005) 
Coastal Land Use Plan, 4.1.1, p. 4-1.)  The CLUP sets out criteria for identifying 
ESHA and establishes a presumption, rebuttable by “site-specific evidence,” that 
areas meeting those criteria are ESHA. 
The Coastal Act specifies that “[e]nvironmentally sensitive habitat areas 
shall be protected against any significant disruption of habitat values, and only 
uses dependent on those resources shall be allowed within those areas.”  (§ 30240, 
subd. (a).)  “Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive habitat 
areas . . . shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly 
degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance of those habitat 
. . . areas.”  (§ 30240, subd. (b).) 
B.  The Proposed Development and the Early Identification of ESHA  
The City was unable to raise the funds to buy Banning Ranch for open 
space.  In August 2008 Newport Banning Ranch LLC (NBR) submitted a proposal 
for a residential and commercial village reaching the maximum levels of 
development permitted by the general plan.  At the City‟s request, the proposal 
included a report on “the extensive field survey work” by NBR‟s biological 
consultant “on potential special status habitats (potential ESHA).”  The proposal 
explained that the project was designed to avoid all areas of ESHA as defined by 
the CLUP, with one exception.  A major access road would have unavoidable 
impacts on 0.06 acre of potential scrub ESHA and 0.02 acre of potential riparian 
ESHA.  These impacts would be fully mitigated.  A map included in the biological 
report showed numerous potential ESHA throughout Banning Ranch. 
The City was not satisfied with NBR‟s proposed road network.  Banning 
Ranch is bordered by the Santa Ana River and other wetland areas to the west, and 
by 19th Street to the north.  (For a map of the area, with the roadway plan 
 
5 
ultimately approved by the City, see appen. A.)  West Coast Highway, which runs 
along the coastline, forms the southern boundary.  The eastern boundary is 
intersected or approached by 15th, 16th, 17th, and 18th Streets.  The southeastern 
corner of the site is bordered by Sunset Ridge Park, a separate City project that 
was in progress at the time of NBR‟s proposal.  NBR‟s plans called for a new 
“Bluff Road,” running north from the highway and curving east to meet 15th 
Street, with another segment extending northward.  The Orange County master 
plan of arterial highways (MPAH) envisioned Bluff Road as a six-lane divided 
road running north and south through the eastern portion of Banning Ranch, 
connecting 19th Street with the highway.  However, NBR proposed to omit the 
segment between 19th and 17th streets in order to limit ESHA impacts.  It 
contemplated amending the MPAH to reflect this change. 
The mayor and city council wanted Bluff Road to run all the way to 19th 
Street.  NBR submitted a revised plan, saying it would accommodate the “road 
circulation network requested by the City of Newport Beach as a public benefit.”  
NBR‟s biological consultant pointed out that the changes “would significantly 
impact scrub, wetlands, and riparian habitat that would be considered [ESHA] 
pursuant to the City‟s [CLUP] as well as the California Coastal Act . . . .  It is 
important to note that impacts to ESHA are prohibited [by the] California Coastal 
Act except for certain allowable uses, and the proposed connectors would be 
problematic to the California Coastal Commission.” 
Under CEQA, the “lead agency” is “the public agency which has the 
principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project.”  (§ 21067.)  As 
lead agency for the NBR project, the City was responsible for preparing an EIR.  
(See § 21100, subd. (a).)  The process entails circulation of a notice of preparation, 
followed by draft and final EIRs.  The public may submit comments on the notice 
 
6 
of preparation and the draft EIR.  (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15082, 15087, 
15089.)2 
The City retained its own environmental consultant.  In March 2009, it gave 
notice that it would prepare a draft EIR for the Banning Ranch project.  The notice 
stated that the project “includes areas that may be defined and regulated under the 
California Coastal Act . . . as either wetlands or environmentally sensitive habitat 
areas (ESHAs).”  The notice also explained that because the City did not have a 
certified local coastal program, it could not issue coastal development permits for 
the project.  If the City approved the project plans, NBR would apply for a coastal 
development permit from the Coastal Commission. 
A number of public comments on the notice mentioned the need to identify 
ESHA in the EIR.  The City of Costa Mesa suggested that “[g]iven the 
significance of the project site, the EIR should consider the Coastal Commission 
thresholds for impacts to wild life and endangered species.”  A consultant and a 
board member for BRC, the group that eventually brought this lawsuit, also urged 
the City to use Coastal Commission standards to assess ESHA on the site.  
Another BRC member commented that the proposed Bluff Road extension crossed 
ESHA, and would not be approved by the commission. 
In April 2009, Coastal Commission staff learned that vegetation had been 
cleared from three areas on Banning Ranch without a coastal development permit.  
Investigation disclosed that NBR had leased portions of its property to a contractor 
doing utility work.  The contractor cleared the areas and used them for parking and 
storage.  In September and December 2010, the City and NBR representatives 
visited the sites with a Coastal Commission ecologist to determine the extent of 
                                              
2  
Subsequent references to “Guidelines” are to the CEQA guidelines found in 
title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, section 15000 et seq. 
 
7 
the unpermitted activity and its impacts.  The ecologist decided that two cleared 
areas, one on Banning Ranch and one straddling the boundary between the ranch 
and City property, met the definition of ESHA.3  The City and NBR disputed that 
determination and submitted documents supporting their view.  Ultimately, 
however, they chose not to contest the ESHA findings. 
The parties formalized a stipulation that commission staff‟s ESHA findings 
would be determinative only as to the two areas at issue, and that the commission 
would undertake a separate analysis of other areas in any future proceedings.  The 
City and NBR noted their disagreement with the findings and retained the right to 
present evidence on whether other areas were ESHA.  The commission adopted 
the staff findings, which included a determination that the unpermitted activity 
was inconsistent with policies in the City‟s CLUP.4  It issued consent orders 
requiring the City and NBR to restore the damaged sites.   
                                              
3  
The ecologist prepared a memorandum describing the December 2010 site 
visit.  She noted that the parties had discussed “our approach to making an ESHA 
determination.”   The memorandum refers to the map of potential ESHA on 
Banning Ranch that was part of the biological report accompanying NBR‟s 
original project proposal.  It observes that the biological report “was posted on the 
City of Newport Beach website and downloaded in August 2009; it has since been 
removed. . . .  Given that the vegetation . . . and ESHA . . . exhibits portray the 
expert opinion of [NBR‟s consultant] at the time they were developed, we believe 
it is appropriate to consider this information, along with other sources, in our 
ESHA determination.  We note that these data support our ESHA 
conclusions . . . .” 
4  
Staff noted that until the City obtained certification of its local coastal 
program, Coastal Act standards governed permitting and enforcement.  However, 
“because the City‟s CLUP has been certified and Banning Ranch is within the 
City‟s sphere of influence, it serves as a valuable guidance document in such 
matters.”  The report quotes at length from the CLUP‟s provisions regarding 
ESHA. 
 
8 
In March 2011, shortly before the consent orders were finalized, City and 
NBR representatives met with Coastal Commission staff to talk about Banning 
Ranch.  Topics included attempts by commission staff to visit the project site, and 
the fact that there had been “no recent contacts with [commission] staff.”  Several 
months later the City‟s planning manager e-mailed the NBR project manager, 
asking what revisions would be made as a result of the commission‟s designation 
of ESHA on the site.  The NBR manager responded, “No revisions.  We will have 
to fight for our project — just as the City will for its park — but it can be built as 
proposed after re-vegetating the two [areas] (which are in areas already designated 
for open space) and providing the mitigation (again which is areas already 
designated for open space — most of which is in the open space at the north of the 
property).  [¶]  In short — the [Coastal Commission] agreement will not affect the 
[draft] EIR.” 
The reference to the City‟s park was to Sunset Ridge Park, the separate 
project bordering Banning Ranch to the southeast.  The final EIR for the park 
project had been certified a year earlier.  (See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City 
of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1219 (Banning Ranch I).)  The 
Sunset Ridge Park EIR designated no area of the park as ESHA under the City‟s 
CLUP, but acknowledged that two areas might be considered ESHA by the 
Coastal Commission.  (Id. at pp. 1233-1234.)  The proposed public access to the 
park was a road over Banning Ranch, the size and location of which became a 
significant issue.  
C.  The Park Road Dispute  
Commission staff issued a report in October 2011 recommending that a 
coastal development permit be denied for Sunset Ridge Park.  The report 
explained that the City sought access to its park through Banning Ranch under an 
agreement with NBR.  The proposed access road crossed ESHA that were 
 
9 
occupied by the endangered California gnatcatcher.  After working with the City 
and considering several alternatives, staff had identified a route that would avoid 
direct impacts on gnatcatcher habitat.  Staff was prepared to recommend approval 
of this alignment if the road was restricted to two lanes with limited daily usage 
and gnatcatcher habitat was created on each side, with some other habitat 
improvements. 
The City and NBR would not agree to these conditions.  The draft EIR for 
the Banning Ranch project, which had just circulated, proposed widening the road 
to four lanes.  It would serve both the park and the NBR development, becoming a 
major arterial road used by thousands of vehicles a day.  Commission staff 
observed that such a road would directly affect the ESHA already identified, and 
others that were likely to be determined.  The staff report concluded: 
“To summarize, staff has been working earnestly with the City to identify a 
[park] project that could be approved pursuant to modifications and special 
conditions to bring it into compliance with the Coastal Act.  However, after further 
review, and after further communication with the City and with [NBR], it has 
become clear that they cannot address the threshold issue of foreclosing future 
expansion of the park access road, so that ESHA, buffers, and the California 
gnatcatcher that relies on them, are permanently protected . . . .  Compromises on 
the widths and kinds of uses within buffers would also be required, that could only 
be offset by revegetating the buffers with [plants] suitable for use by gnatcatchers, 
and permanently preserving those areas.  Certain issues remain unresolved related 
to vernal pools and the legality of mowing habitat that would otherwise be ESHA.  
Therefore, in our final analysis based on the information now before us, staff 
determined that the proposed [park] project is not consistent with the Coastal Act, 
and the proposed project must be denied.  If the City and [NBR] anticipate a larger 
road . . . to serve future development on the Banning Ranch property, all impacts 
 
10 
associated with a road in this location should be reviewed in the context of the 
larger development it will ultimately serve.  Approval of a smaller road and its 
associated impacts is premature at this time.”  (Cal. Coastal Com., Staff Rep. on 
application No. 5-10-168 (Oct. 20, 2011) pp. 6-7.) 
In a responding letter, the City claimed it had no legal authority to 
revegetate the roadside areas, which would “create a new resource” instead of 
providing a buffer.  The letter said “it continues to be the position of the City that 
its proposed park access road is not a precursor for future [NBR development].”  
However, the City acknowledged that the proposed arterial road for the Banning 
Ranch project was “double the size of the park road,” and that the park road was 
“located with aforethought in the approximate location” of the arterial road.  The 
City protested the restrictions on the park access road as a “preemptive strike on 
future development” that was beyond the scope of the Coastal Commission‟s 
permitting authority.  It noted that foreclosing the construction of an arterial road 
on Banning Ranch would conflict with the circulation element of the City‟s 
general plan, the County‟s master plan, and countywide transportation funding 
requirements. 
D.  The Draft EIR and Public Comments 
The City circulated a draft EIR for the Banning Ranch project in September 
2011.  The document explained that while the City could not issue coastal 
development permits, it did “review[] pending development projects for 
consistency with the General Plan, Zoning regulations, and the CLUP” before 
applicants sought coastal development permits from the Coastal Commission.  The 
draft EIR did not identify potential ESHA or discuss the subject in any substantive 
detail.  It noted in various places that the project would require a permit from the 
commission, which would determine whether Banning Ranch contained ESHA.  
 
11 
The City acknowledged that in doing so, the commission would take guidance 
from the CLUP. 
Many comments on the Banning Ranch draft EIR complained about the 
omission of an ESHA analysis.  One comment asserted that the avoidance of any 
ESHA determination was “egregious” because both NBR and the City knew there 
were ESHA on Banning Ranch because of the Coastal Commission consent 
orders.  A consultant retained by BRC claimed that while the draft EIR did not 
include a map of probable ESHA, a computer search would reveal “numerous 
wetland polygons . . . indicating the EIR preparer‟s opinion regarding the limits of 
wetland ESHA on the project site; many of these areas are proposed for permanent 
impacts, which is inconsistent with the Coastal Act.”  Another comment referred 
to a hearing on the park access road, from which “it appears that the Coastal 
Commission has identified ESHA at Banning Ranch where the City had not.  
Habitat mapping [in the EIR] must be revised to reflect [the] observations and the 
standards of the Coastal Commission.” 
The Coastal Commission submitted 15 pages of staff comments, noting 
they “should not be construed as representing the opinion of the Coastal 
Commission itself.”  Staff said the City‟s CLUP provided “strong guidance” even 
though no local coastal program was in place.  They suggested the EIR address 
whether the proposed development was consistent with policies in both the CLUP 
and the Coastal Act.  Several comments pertained to ESHA. 
Commission staff pointed out that under the Coastal Act, development must 
avoid impacts to ESHA.  They said section 30240 does not permit “non-resource 
dependent impacts to an ESHA area,” even if there is mitigation in other areas.  
“Rather, Section 30240 requires that proposed new development be located 
outside of ESHA areas.  Additionally, Section 30240 requires siting, design, and 
appropriate buffers to ensure that development adjacent to ESHA does not result 
 
12 
in” ESHA impacts.  Staff recommended that the EIR use the CLUP to evaluate 
sensitive habitat areas and appropriate buffer zones.  “[I]t is important that the EIR 
process incorporate a determination of probable ESHA areas and their required 
buffers before land use areas and development footprints are established.”  Staff 
proposed that ESHA, wetland, and buffer zone delineations be reviewed by 
commission biologists before the EIR was finalized. 
Based on a “preliminary analysis,” commission staff found that the 
proposed Banning Ranch development was inconsistent with the ESHA 
requirements of the Coastal Act, particularly the four-lane portion of Bluff Road 
connecting with West Coast Highway.  They urged that the EIR “more fully 
consider alternative intensities of development on the site and alternative means to 
access the property,” because any access road from West Coast Highway would 
likely be found inconsistent with the Coastal Act.  The comment added that some 
grading and placement of structures appeared to infringe on sensitive areas 
mapped in the draft EIR, and “[o]nce more fully mapped as recommended herein, 
the quantity of sensitive habitat areas may be even more extensive.  In any event, 
it‟s clear that the proposed development would result in the elimination of habitat 
supporting sensitive species.”  Staff suggested the City evaluate alternatives to 
avoid these impacts. 
E.  The Final EIR 
In the final EIR, the City responded to comments but did not change its 
position on ESHA determinations.  Regarding the Coastal Commission consent 
orders, the City said the agreed-upon restoration plan was being implemented.  It 
acknowledged that the commission had identified two ESHA on the project site.  
However, it said the commission “has not made an ESHA determination for the 
remainder of the . . . site, and no conclusions of ESHA can and will be made by 
the City at this time as part of the EIR process that would in any way bind the 
 
13 
Coastal Commission or elucidate on the Coastal Commission‟s ultimate 
conclusions [sic].  Rather, as appropriate under CEQA, the City has analyzed the 
impacts of the project, and concluded that they can be reduced to a less-than-
significant level or avoided with appropriate measures.  As stated in the Consent 
Orders, a separate analysis will be undertaken by the Coastal Commission in 
connection with any future Coastal Development Permit application or proceeding 
before the Coastal Commission involving these properties.” 
In a general discussion of ESHA, the City emphasized that Sunset Ridge 
Park and the NBR development were separate projects, and that the park was 
beyond the scope of the Banning Ranch EIR.  Although the Coastal Commission 
was responsible for ESHA determinations, the City had “taken into consideration 
. . . the policies of the Coastal Act in the Draft EIR and provide[d] a consistency 
analysis of the proposed Project and those policies.”  The City referred to a table 
in the draft EIR finding the project generally consistent with a list of Coastal Act 
provisions, but without any mention of ESHA.  It recognized that “the proposed 
alignment of Bluff Road is within areas that were identified as ESHA by the 
Coastal Commission in the Consent Orders.  The Coastal Commission has not 
reviewed the Newport Banning Ranch proposal and has not made any 
recommendations regarding Bluff Road at this time.  The Coastal Commission 
has, however, reviewed the City‟s Sunset Ridge Park application which included a 
park access road in this same area and made recommendations on reconfiguring 
the entry road to minimize impacts to sensitive coastal resources in a manner that 
could be found consistent with the Coastal Act and Section 30240 in particular.”  
The City did not mention that it had rejected those recommendations, saying only 
that it had later “revised its application for Sunset Ridge Park.” 
The City disavowed any obligation to further consider ESHA.  It claimed it 
had “fulfilled its obligation under CEQA to analyze the significant impacts of a 
 
14 
project on the physical environment.”  It maintained that ESHA findings were 
“within the discretion of the Coastal Commission, or a local agency as part of its 
[local coastal plan] certification process.  While the Draft EIR must identify a 
project‟s impact on the environment, including biological resources such as 
sensitive species and sensitive native vegetation, it is not required to make a 
finding pursuant to the Coastal Act.  That would be within the discretion and 
authority of the Coastal Commission when this Project comes before them.”  The 
City noted that NBR would “apply for a Coastal Development Permit to 
implement its proposed Project.  The Coastal Commission‟s comments regarding 
the level of detail required for a Coastal Development Permit will be forwarded to 
[NBR] for its consideration in preparing its application to the Coastal 
Commission.”5 
With regard to using the CLUP to analyze environmental impacts, the City 
noted Banning Ranch‟s status as a deferred certification area, and argued that “the 
policies in the City‟s CLUP are not applicable to the Banning Ranch property. . . .  
Because the City does not have a certified [local coastal plan], and the City‟s 
CLUP does not include the Banning Ranch property, the City acknowledges that 
any consideration of a Coastal Development Permit for the Project site would 
require a finding of consistency with the . . . policies of the Coastal Act.” 
                                              
5  
An e-mail from the City‟s planning manager to its environmental 
consultant, shortly before the final EIR was released, also indicates the City‟s 
expectation that NBR would shoulder the responsibility for meeting Coastal 
Commission requirements.  When asked how much time and effort the consultant 
should spend preparing a response to anticipated commission staff comments on 
archaeological resources, the planning manager wrote:  “Very little.  After the 
EIR‟s certified, the work is done.  It will be [NBR‟s] responsibility to get it 
through [the Coastal Commission].” 
 
15 
In response to commission staff‟s ESHA comments, the City stated:  “The 
purpose of the Draft EIR is to analyze a proposed project‟s impact on the physical 
environment.  It is not, in and of itself, a policy consistency analysis, except to the 
extent that such inconsistencies reveal environmental impacts that otherwise are 
not discussed. . . .  [T]he Draft EIR analyzes the proposed Project‟s impact on 
biological resources, including federal and State listed endangered and threatened 
species, sensitive plant and animal species, and specific habitats such as wetlands 
and vernal pools. All impacts to these resources would be mitigated or avoided 
with the Mitigation Program . . . .  The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Coastal 
Commission makes the determination as to whether any or all of these constitute 
ESHA under the Coastal Act, and application of the policies of the Coastal Act to 
the existing conditions on the Project site would be undertaken as part of the 
Coastal Commission‟s Coastal Development Permit process.”  The City did not 
directly respond to staff‟s concern about the identification of potential ESHA 
“before land use areas and development footprints are established.”  It did not 
respond at all to the suggestion that ESHA and buffer zone delineations be 
reviewed by commission staff before the EIR was finalized. 
The City extensively addressed commission staff‟s comments on the Bluff 
Road access from West Coast Highway.  It acknowledged that the staff 
recommendations prepared for the Sunset Ridge Park permit application included 
a finding that the proposed arterial road would be inconsistent with the Coastal 
Act.  However, the City noted that no action had yet been taken on the Sunset 
Ridge Park application.  It repeated that staff had indicated they would approve an 
access road from West Coast Highway under some circumstances.  A new 
connection from 19th Street to the highway was a “fundamental goal” of the 
project, and the City had accepted funding from the county (“Measure M” funds) 
premised on the condition that it would complete that link.  It found that 
 
16 
elimination of access from the highway would be “infeasible” in light of these 
constraints. 
The City‟s response concluded:  “Bluff Road through the property is 
reflected in the City‟s General Plan Circulation Element Master Plan of Streets 
and Highways and the Orange County MPAH.  The City cannot eliminate this 
planned circulation improvement without amending its Circulation Element, and 
cannot unilaterally amend the County‟s MPAH.  Further, eliminating Bluff Road 
would place the City in conflict with its obligations assumed in connection with its 
acceptance of Measure M funds.  Finally, eliminating Bluff Road access from 
West Coast Highway would not substantially lessen impacts to biological 
resources and would eliminate an alternative means of coastal access.” 
F.  Project Approval and the Litigation Below 
The City certified the final EIR in July 2012.  It also approved NBR‟s 
master development plan, a development agreement, and zoning changes for 
Banning Ranch.  BRC challenged the project approval by seeking a writ of 
mandate.  It contended the EIR did not adequately disclose or analyze 
environmental impacts and mitigation measures with respect to ESHA, instead 
deferring these critical functions.  BRC also alleged that the City had violated its 
obligation under the general plan to work with the Coastal Commission to identify 
areas on Banning Ranch to be protected from development. 
The City responded that CEQA does not require an EIR to include ESHA 
determinations.  It defended its exercise of discretion under the general plan.  The 
trial court rejected the CEQA claims, relying on Banning Ranch I, supra, 211 
Cal.App.4th 1209.  In that case, the Court of Appeal held it was sufficient for the 
City‟s Sunset Ridge Park EIR to note potential ESHA and acknowledge that the 
Coastal Commission‟s designation of ESHA might lead it to reject proposed 
 
17 
mitigation measures.  However, the trial court granted BRC‟s petition, finding that 
the City had failed to meet its obligations under the general plan. 
The Court of Appeal reversed the grant of relief, concluding that the 
general plan did not require the City to work with the Coastal Commission before 
project approval.  On the CEQA issue, the court agreed with the City that ESHA 
designations were a legal determination to be made by the Coastal Commission, 
and not a subject for consideration in the EIR.  Like the trial court, the Court of 
Appeal found support in Banning Ranch I, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pages 1233-
1234.  It acknowledged that in Banning Ranch I the park was subject to the City‟s 
CLUP, and the City did identify potential ESHA in the EIR.  However, it deemed 
these differences unimportant, finding it sufficient for the Banning Ranch EIR to 
note that the project was outside the scope of the CLUP and the Coastal 
Commission would determine whether ESHA would be affected.  The court 
concluded, “CEQA does not require the City to prognosticate as to the likelihood 
of ESHA determinations and coastal development permit approval.” 
II.  DISCUSSION 
A.  Sufficiency of the EIR 
“[A]n agency may abuse its discretion under CEQA either by failing to 
proceed in the manner CEQA provides or by reaching factual conclusions 
unsupported by substantial evidence.  (§ 21168.5.)  Judicial review of these two 
types of error differs significantly:  While we determine de novo whether the 
agency has employed the correct procedures, „scrupulously enforc[ing] all 
legislatively mandated CEQA requirements‟ (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of 
Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564), we accord greater deference to the 
agency‟s substantive factual conclusions.  In reviewing for substantial evidence, 
the reviewing court „may not set aside an agency‟s approval of an EIR on the 
ground that an opposite conclusion would have been equally or more reasonable,‟ 
 
18 
for, on factual questions, our task „is not to weigh conflicting evidence and 
determine who has the better argument.‟  (Laurel Heights [Improvement Assn. v. 
Regents of University of California (1988)] 47 Cal.3d [376,] 393.”  (Vineyard 
Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 
Cal.4th 412, 435 (Vineyard).) 
Whether an EIR has omitted essential information is a procedural question 
subject to de novo review.  (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 435; Sierra Club v. 
State Bd. of Forestry (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1215, 1236 (Sierra Club).)  Here the 
principal issue is whether the Banning Ranch EIR was required to identify 
potential ESHA and analyze the impacts of the project on those areas.  CEQA 
requires every EIR to identify “[a]ll significant effects on the environment of the 
proposed project,” which would generally include effects on sensitive habitat 
areas.  (§ 21100, subd. (b)(1); see Guidelines, § 15126.2.)  ESHA, however, are 
“rare or especially valuable” habitat areas in the coastal zone, given enhanced 
protection by the Coastal Act.  (§ 30107.5)  They must be “protected against any 
significant disruption of habitat values, and only uses dependent on those 
resources shall be allowed within those areas.”  (§ 30240, subd. (a).)  
Development adjacent to ESHA “shall be sited and designed to prevent impacts 
which would significantly degrade those areas, and shall be compatible with the 
continuance of those habitat . . . areas.”  (§ 30240, subd. (b).) 
The City argues that CEQA imposes no duty to consider the Coastal Act‟s 
ESHA requirements.  It claims it was sufficient for the Banning Ranch EIR to 
analyze the impacts of the NBR project, including those on sensitive habitat areas, 
without accounting for potential ESHA.  Essentially, the City claims it was 
entitled to ignore the fact that Banning Ranch is in the coastal zone.  The City‟s 
position is untenable.  CEQA sets out a fundamental policy requiring local 
agencies to “integrate the requirements of this division with planning and 
 
19 
environmental review procedures otherwise required by law or by local practice so 
that all those procedures, to the maximum feasible extent, run concurrently, rather 
than consecutively.”  (§ 21003, subd. (a).)  The CEQA guidelines similarly specify 
that “[t]o the extent possible, the EIR process should be combined with the 
existing planning, review, and project approval process used by each public 
agency.”  (Guidelines, § 15080.) 
An EIR project description must include “[a] list of related environmental 
review and consultation requirements [found in] federal, state, or local laws, 
regulations, or policies.  To the fullest extent possible, the lead agency should 
integrate CEQA review with these related environmental review and consultation 
requirements.”  (Guidelines, § 15124, subd. (d)(1)(C), italics added; see also 
Guidelines, § 15006, subd. (i).)  Toward that end, agencies are encouraged to 
“[c]onsult[] with state and local responsible agencies before and during 
preparation of an environmental impact report so that the document will meet the 
needs of all the agencies which will use it.”  (Guidelines, § 15006, subd. (g).)  
Here, the City ignored its obligation to integrate CEQA review with the 
requirements of the Coastal Act, and gave little consideration to the Coastal 
Commission‟s needs. 
The Guidelines specifically call for consideration of related regulatory 
regimes, like the Coastal Act, when discussing project alternatives.  An EIR must 
“describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project,” or to its location, that 
would “feasibly attain” most of its basic objectives but “avoid or substantially 
lessen” its significant effects.  (Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (a).)  Among the 
factors relevant to the feasibility analysis are “other plans or regulatory limitations, 
[and] jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact 
should consider the regional context).”  (Id., subd. (f)(1).)  By definition, projects 
with substantial impacts in the coastal zone are regionally significant.  
 
20 
(Guidelines, § 15206, subd. (b)(4)(C).)6  Thus, the regulatory limitations imposed 
by the Coastal Act‟s ESHA provisions should have been central to the Banning 
Ranch EIR‟s analysis of feasible alternatives. 
Evaluation of project alternatives and mitigation measures is “[t]he core of 
an EIR.”  (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 
564 (Goleta Valley).)  “The purpose of an environmental impact report is to 
provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about 
the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list 
ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to 
indicate alternatives to such a project.”  (§ 21061; see § 21002.1, subd. (a).)  
CEQA procedures “are intended to assist public agencies in systematically 
identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible 
alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially 
lessen such significant effects.”  (§ 21002; see Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, 15126.6.)  
Decisions as to the feasibility of alternatives and mitigation measures are 
subject to a rule of reason.  (Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 565; Laurel 
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, supra, 47 
Cal.3d at p. 407 (Laurel Heights I); see Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).)  No 
one factor establishes a categorical limit on the scope of reasonably feasible 
alternatives to be discussed in an EIR.  (Goleta Valley, at p. 566; Guidelines, 
§ 15126.6, subd. (f).)  Here, however, the City‟s EIR omitted any analysis of the 
Coastal Act‟s ESHA requirements.  It did not discuss which areas might qualify as 
                                              
6 
In general, an EIR must take “the regional setting” of a project into account, 
placing “[s]pecial emphasis . . . on environmental resources that are rare or unique 
to that region and would be affected . . . .”  (Guidelines, § 15125, subd. (c).)  
“[T]he significant effects of the project [must] be considered in the full 
environmental context.”  (Ibid.) 
 
21 
ESHA, or consider impacts on the two ESHA delineated in the Coastal 
Commission‟s consent orders.  As a result, the EIR did not meaningfully address 
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures.7  Given the ample evidence that 
ESHA are present on Banning Ranch, the decision to forego discussion of these 
topics cannot be considered reasonable. 
None of the City‟s justifications for deferring the ESHA analysis is 
persuasive.  It contends it has no authority to designate ESHA on Banning Ranch 
because only the Coastal Commission can do that.  Amicus curiae League of 
California Cities makes a similar argument that lead agencies are not required to 
make legal determinations within the province of another agency.  The League 
expresses concern that ESHA identifications in EIRs might be subject to de novo 
judicial review.  However, a lead agency is not required to make a “legal” ESHA 
determination in an EIR.  Rather, it must discuss potential ESHA and their 
ramifications for mitigation measures and alternatives when there is credible 
evidence that ESHA might be present on a project site.  A reviewing court 
considers only the sufficiency of the discussion.8 
                                              
7 
We express no view as to whether ESHA impacts must be avoided, as 
opposed to mitigated.  (See Bolsa Chica Land Trust v. Superior Court (1999) 71 
Cal.App.4th 493, 507.)  The issue never arose here because the EIR did not 
discuss ESHA impacts.  We use “mitigation” in a general sense, to include such 
measures as buffer zones. 
8  
BRC contends the City did have legal authority to designate ESHA, relying 
on Douda v. California Coastal Com. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1181.  Douda is 
inapposite; there the court reviewed a challenge to the Coastal Commission’s 
authority to designate ESHA.  (Id. at p. 1191.)  In passing, the court noted that a 
local government may become an “issuing agency,” i.e., an agency empowered to 
issue a coastal development permit, before it certifies a local coastal program.  (Id. 
at pp. 1188, 1191.)  For that to happen, however, the local agency must “establish 
procedures for the filing, processing, review, modification, approval, or denial of a 
coastal development permit.”  (§ 30600, subd. (b)(1).)  The City had no such 
procedures in place. 
 
(footnote continued on next page) 
 
22 
The City claims that identification of potential ESHA would be merely 
speculative.  The argument fails for several reasons.  First, no speculation was 
involved with respect to the two ESHA covered by the consent orders.9  These 
areas were in the path of the Bluff Road access from West Coast Highway, yet the 
City approved the road without considering ESHA requirements.  Further, the City 
knew that NBR‟s own biological consultant had identified numerous potential 
ESHA in other areas.  The City‟s CLUP provided guidelines for identifying 
ESHA.  The City was offered the assistance of Coastal Commission staff.  It had 
ample bases for an informed discussion of the NBR project‟s potential ESHA 
impacts.  “The fact that precision may not be possible . . . does not mean that no 
analysis is required.  „Drafting an EIR . . . involves some degree of forecasting.  
While foreseeing the unforeseeable is not possible, an agency must use its best 
efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can.‟  (Guidelines, § 15144.)”  
(Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 399.)  Here the City did not use its best 
efforts to investigate and disclose what it discovered about ESHA on Banning 
Ranch.  
                                                                                                                                                              
 
(footnote continued from previous page) 
 
 
The Douda court, in the course of summarizing the terms of section 30600, 
which are less than crystalline, suggested that a local agency might be authorized 
to issue permits without either certifying a local coastal program or following 
section 30600, subdivision (b)(1).  (Douda v. California Coastal Com., supra, 159 
Cal.App.4th at p. 1188.)  The suggestion is incorrect.  The statute leaves no room 
for such a scenario.  (§ 30600, subds. (c) & (d).) 
9  
BRC asserts the City had earlier determined that all of Banning Ranch was 
ESHA.  The claim is misleading.  As the City explains, a study referenced in a 
2003 planning document had generally identified Banning Ranch as “ESHA.”  
After Coastal Commission staff cautioned the City about the consequences of 
designating ESHA under the Coastal Act, the City changed its usage to refer to 
Banning Ranch as an “environmental study area.”  
 
23 
It also appears that the City has evaluated ESHA impacts as a matter of 
course for other projects.  The EIR explained that even though it did not have a 
certified local coastal program and therefore could not issue coastal development 
permits, the City did review project applications for consistency with its general 
plan, zoning regulations, and CLUP.  Applicants would then seek a coastal 
development permit from the Coastal Commission.  Accordingly, it seems the City 
routinely applied its CLUP requirements, which include specific ESHA 
guidelines, even though ultimate ESHA determinations would be made by the 
commission.  The City‟s excuse for not doing so in this case is that Banning Ranch 
is not covered by the CLUP.  However, the EIR acknowledged that the 
commission would consider the CLUP‟s provisions when it assessed ESHA on 
Banning Ranch.  Nothing prevented the City from doing the same, just as it does 
for projects within the CLUP. 
The City insists that ESHA would be fully considered during the permitting 
phase of the project.  Such a delay is inconsistent with CEQA‟s policy of 
integrated review.  (§ 21003, subd. (a).)  As noted, a lead agency must consider 
related regulations and matters of regional significance when weighing project 
alternatives.  (Guidelines, § 15126.6.)  The City‟s argument is also undermined by 
Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta (1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 433.  
There, the EIR did not discuss a mitigation measure proposed by the United States 
Army Corps of Engineers.  The city justified the omission by claiming the corps 
would act to protect wetlands during the permit process.  The court was not 
persuaded.  “Each public agency is required to comply with CEQA and meet its 
responsibilities, including evaluating mitigation measures and project alternatives.  
(See Guidelines, § 15020.)”  (Citizens for Quality Growth, at p. 442, fn. 8.)  Lead 
agencies in particular must take a comprehensive view in an EIR.  (§ 21002.1, 
 
24 
subd. (d); Habitat & Watershed Caretakers v. City of Santa Cruz (2013) 213 
Cal.App.4th 1277, 1298-1299.) 
The City‟s position finds no support in Banning Ranch I, supra, 211 
Cal.App.4th 1209.  In that case the City identified potential ESHA in Sunset Ridge 
Park and discussed mitigation measures.  BRC argued that the Coastal 
Commission was likely to disagree but did not claim, as it does here, that the City 
had entirely failed to designate potential ESHA.  The Banning Ranch I court 
concluded that the Sunset Ridge Park EIR “adequately flagged potential 
inconsistencies and addressed them in advance through proposed mitigation.”  (Id. 
at p. 1234.)  Here, the Court of Appeal reasoned that the Banning Ranch EIR also 
“adequately flagged potential inconsistencies with the Coastal Act by emphasizing 
(1) that the Project was outside the scope of [the CLUP], and (2) that the Coastal 
Commission would determine whether ESHAs were affected by the Project.”  We 
disagree.  Instead of flagging and addressing potential conflicts with Coastal Act 
provisions, the City avoided any mention of them. 
Hanging over the City‟s briefing, and much of the Court of Appeal opinion, 
is the supposition that if the City were required to identify potential ESHA in the 
EIR, it would have to accept the ESHA designations and related measures 
proposed by commission staff.  That is not the case.  An EIR is an informational 
document, not a settlement agreement or a memorandum of understanding.  The 
lead agency may disagree with the opinions of other agencies.  (See North Coast 
Rivers Alliance v. Marin Municipal Water Dist. Bd. of Directors (2013) 216 
Cal.App.4th 614, 642-643; California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho 
Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 625-626 (California Native Plant).)  In 
order to serve the important purpose of providing other agencies and the public 
with an informed discussion of impacts, mitigation measures, and alternatives, an 
EIR must lay out any competing views put forward by the lead agency and other 
 
25 
interested agencies.  (See § 21061; Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 391.)  
The Guidelines state that an EIR should identify “[a]reas of controversy known to 
the lead agency including issues raised by [other] agencies.”  (Guidelines, 
§ 15123, subd. (b)(2).)  “Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR 
inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among 
the experts.”  (Guidelines, § 15151.)  “[M]ajor environmental issues raised when 
the lead agency‟s position is at variance with recommendations and objections 
raised in the comments must be addressed in detail.”  (Guidelines, § 15088, subd. 
(c).) 
The City correctly points out that the ultimate findings regarding ESHA on 
Banning Ranch will be made by the California Coastal Commissioners 
themselves, not commission staff.  But both the commissioners and interested 
members of the public are entitled to understand the disagreements between 
commission staff and the City on the subject of ESHA.  The requirement that the 
City spell out its differences with commission staff “ „helps [e]nsure the integrity 
of the process of decision by precluding stubborn problems or serious criticism 
from being swept under the rug. . . .  [W]here comments from responsible experts 
or sister agencies disclose new or conflicting data or opinions that cause concern 
that the agency may not have fully evaluated the project and its alternatives, these 
comments may not simply be ignored.  There must be good faith, reasoned 
analysis in response.‟ ”  (People v. County of Kern (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 830, 
841-842; accord, Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. 
Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 935 (Concerned Citizens).)  Rather than 
sweep disagreements under the rug, the City must fairly present them in its EIR.  It 
is then free to explain why it declined to accept commission staff suggestions. 
Some information on ESHA and the disputes between the City and 
commission staff can be gleaned from a diligent search of the EIR appendices and 
 
26 
other elements of the administrative record.  However, such a fragmented 
presentation is inadequate.  Readers of an EIR should not be required to “ferret out 
an unreferenced discussion in [related material] . . . .  The data in an EIR must not 
only be sufficient in quantity, it must be presented in a manner calculated to 
adequately inform the public and decision makers, who may not be previously 
familiar with the details of the project.  „[I]nformation “scattered here and there in 
EIR appendices,” or a report “buried in an appendix,” is not a substitute for “a 
good faith reasoned analysis . . . .” ‟ ”  (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 442.)  
Here the City did not make a good faith attempt to analyze project alternatives and 
mitigation measures in light of applicable Coastal Act requirements.  It openly 
declared that it was omitting any consideration of potential ESHA from the EIR, 
and deferring that analysis to a subsequent permitting process.  The City‟s 
approach, if generally adopted, would permit lead agencies to perform truncated 
and siloed environmental review, leaving it to other responsible agencies to 
address related concerns seriatim. 
For all the reasons stated above, the Banning Ranch EIR is insufficient.  
The City did provide a detailed biological analysis of project impacts, which may 
have been adequate were Banning Ranch not in the coastal zone.  But, however 
technically accurate the City‟s analysis might otherwise be, it fell short by failing 
to account for the Coastal Act‟s ESHA protections.  “The preparation and 
circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and 
developers to overcome.  The EIR‟s function is to ensure that government officials 
who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the 
environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured 
those consequences have been taken into account.  (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 
Cal.3d at pp. 391-392.)”  (Vineyard, supra, 40 Cal.4th at p. 449; see Concerned 
Citizens, supra, 42 Cal.3d at pp. 935-936.)  The subject of ESHA on Banning 
 
27 
Ranch was raised early and often by City residents and Coastal Commission staff.  
The City owed them a reasoned response. 
We note that the City‟s handling of the Banning Ranch EIR not only 
conflicted with its CEQA obligations, but also ignored the practical reality that the 
project must ultimately pass muster under the Coastal Act.  As one court has 
observed, coordination between a lead agency and a permitting agency “serves the 
laudable purpose of minimizing the chance the City will approve the Project, only 
to have later permits for the Project denied . . . .”  (California Native Plant, supra, 
172 Cal.App.4th at p. 642.)  Agreement between the agencies is not necessary, as 
we have discussed, but conflicts may be avoided or reduced by consultation in 
early stages.  
B.  Reversal Is Required 
 By certifying an inadequate EIR, the City abused its discretion.  “[F]ailure 
to disclose information called for by CEQA may be prejudicial „regardless of 
whether a different outcome would have resulted if the public agency had 
complied‟ with the law (§ 21005, subd. (a)).”  (Neighbors for Smart Rail v. 
Exposition Metro Line Construction Authority (2013) 57 Cal.4th 439, 463.)  On 
the other hand, “there is no presumption that error is prejudicial.”  (§ 21005, subd. 
(b).)  “Insubstantial or merely technical omissions are not grounds for relief.  
[Citation.]  „A prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include 
relevant information precludes informed decisionmaking and informed public 
participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process.‟ ”  
(Neighbors for Smart Rail, at p. 463; see Sierra Club, supra, 7 Cal.4th at pp. 1236-
1237.) 
 
28 
Accordingly, reversal is not called for whenever an agency may have failed 
to integrate its CEQA review with other environmental review procedures “to the 
maximum feasible extent.”  (§ 21003, subd. (a).)10  To be prejudicial, a failure to 
account for related regulations must substantially impair the EIR‟s informational 
function.   Here, the City‟s failure to discuss ESHA requirements and impacts was 
neither insubstantial nor merely technical.  The omission resulted in inadequate 
evaluation of project alternatives and mitigation measures.  Information highly 
relevant to the Coastal Commission‟s permitting function was suppressed.   The 
public was deprived of a full understanding of the environmental issues raised by 
the Banning Ranch project proposal. 
BRC is entitled to relief on its CEQA claim.  We express no view on the 
general plan issues discussed by the courts below. 
                                              
10 
We note that whether such a criticism may fairly be leveled in the first 
place is a question calling for application of a rule of reason, similar to the rule 
governing review of an EIR‟s analysis of “feasible” project alternatives.  (See 
Goleta Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 565; Guidelines, § 15126.6, subd. (f)(1).)  
Other regulations may be complex.  Their application may be uncertain.  Practical 
difficulties with interagency coordination may arise at the EIR stage.  Courts must 
be careful not to second-guess good faith efforts to coordinate environmental 
review. 
 
29 
 
III.  DISPOSITION 
We reverse the Court of Appeal‟s judgment and remand for further 
proceedings consistent with the views expressed herein.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
CORRIGAN, J.  
 
 
WE CONCUR: 
 
CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. 
WERDEGAR, J. 
CHIN, J.   
LIU, J.   
CUÉLLAR, J. 
KRUGER, J.   
 
 
 
1 
 
Appendix 
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 236 Cal.App.4th 1341 
Rehearing Granted 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
Opinion No. S227473 
Date Filed: March 30, 2017 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Orange 
Judge: Robert Louis Becking, Temporary Judge*, Nancy Weiben Stock and Kim Garlin Dunning 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Counsel: 
 
Leibold McClendon & Mann, John G. McClendon, Douglas M. Johnson and David H. Mann for Plaintiff 
and Appellant. 
 
The Law Office of Julie M. Hamilton, Julie M. Hamilton and Leslie Gaunt for Friends of the Canyon as 
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. 
 
Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Stephan C. Volker, Alexis E. Krieg and Daniel P. Garrett-Steinman for 
North Coast Rivers Alliance as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff and Appellant. 
 
Lisa T. Belenky; Coast Law Group and Marco Gonzalez for Center for Biological Diversity, California 
Native Plant Society and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiff 
and Appellant. 
 
Aaron Harp, City Attorney, Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Remy Moose Manley, Whitman F. 
Manley and Jennifer S. Holman for Defendants and Appellants. 
 
Thomas Law Group and Tina Thomas for California Infill Builders Federation as Amicus Curiae on behalf 
of Defendants and Appellants. 
 
Joshua P. Thompson and Christopher M. Kieser for Pacific Legal Foundation as Amicus Curiae on behalf 
of Defendants and Appellants. 
 
The Sohagi Law Group, Margaret M. Sohagi, Nicole H. Gordon and R. Tyson Sohagi for League of 
California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Defendants and 
Appellants. 
 
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, Susan K. Hori and Benjamin G. Shatz for Real Parties in Interest and 
Appellants. 
 
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, John A. Saurenman, Assistant Attorney General, and Jamee Jordan 
Patterson, Deputy Attorney General, for California Coastal Commission as Amicus Curiae. 
 
*Pursuant to California Constitution, Article VI, section 21. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
John G. McClendon 
Leibold McClendon & Mann 
9841 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 230 
Irvine, CA  92618 
(949) 585-6300 
 
Whitman F. Manley 
Remy Moose Manley 
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 800 
Sacramento, CA  95814 
(916) 443-2745 
 
Benjamin G. Shatz 
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips 
695 Town Center Drive, 14th Floor 
Costa Mesa, CA  92626 
(714) 371-2500