§Why CasetextPricing

BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY v. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH (NEWPORT BANNING RANCH)

Appellants, City of Newport Beach and City of Newport Beach City Council, and Real Parties in Interest, Newport Banning Ranch, LLC, Aera Energy, LLC, and Cherokee Newport Beach, LLC, Answer to Petition for Review

13 Cited authorities

  1. Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Bd. of Supervisors

    87 Cal.App.4th 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 195 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Upholding EIR calling for developer payments to government fund as mitigation measure for traffic impacts

  2. California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova

    172 Cal.App.4th 603 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 120 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting as unreasonable interpretation of "coordination" to mean "consultation"

  3. Endangered Habitats League v. County of Orange

    131 Cal.App.4th 777 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 112 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding mitigation measure that requires construction to "meet 'exterior and interior noise standards' satisfactory to the manager of the county's building permit division insufficient" because "[n]o criteria or alternatives to be considered are set out. Rather, this mitigation measure does no more than require a report be prepared and followed, or allow approval by a county department without setting any standards."

  4. Woodward Park v. City of Fresno

    149 Cal.App.4th 892 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 92 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding comments of members of the public and the council were enough under the circumstances to put the agency on notice

  5. Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson

    130 Cal.App.4th 1173 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 71 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Approving a city's interpretation of its zoning code

  6. Sequoyah Hills Homowners Assn. v. City of Oakland

    23 Cal.App.4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 87 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Sequoyah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. City of Oakland (1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 719, the Oakland City Council found a project under consideration to be fully consistent with 14 of the 17 pertinent policies set forth in the Oakland Comprehensive Plan (OCP), although it was in conflict with three other policies.

  7. Families Unafraid to Uphold v. Bd., Supervisors

    62 Cal.App.4th 1332 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 63 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Planning agency abused its discretion by finding consistency between a development and its land use element where the development's "inconsistency with fundamental, mandatory and specific land use policy [was] clear"

  8. Jamieson v. City Council of City of Carpinteria

    204 Cal.App.4th 755 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 23 times
    Recognizing that unchallenged administrative decisions have binding, preclusive effect

  9. Douda v. California Coastal Commn.

    159 Cal.App.4th 1181 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 19 times
    Holding Commission possessed authority to designate an environmentally sensitive habitat area before an LCP has been certified, pointing out the Act "does not parse what policies should be specifically enforced or how they should be enforced" in that context, and Commission also had authority under section 30251 to deny a coastal development permit because it would impair scenic and visual resources four and a half miles inland, because the statute "contains no restrictions"

  10. Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach

    236 Cal.App.4th 1341 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015)   2 Legal Analyses

    G049691 05-20-2015 BANNING RANCH CONSERVANCY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH et al., Defendants and Appellants; Newport Banning Ranch LLC et al., Real Parties in Interest and Appellants. Office of the City Attorney for the City of Newport Beach, Aaron Harp, City Attorney and Leonie Mulvihill, Assistant City Attorney; Remy Moose Manley, Whitman F. Manley and Jennifer S. Holman, Sacramento for Defendants and Appellants. Leibold McClendon & Mann and John G. McClendon, Laguna Hills

  11. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 337 times

    (a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer

  12. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 21 times

    (a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)