Opinion
Page 574a
108 Cal.App.4th 574a ___Cal.Rptr.2d___ SIERRA CLUB et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Defendant and Respondent; CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP, Real Party in Interest and Respondent. A100194 California Court of Appeal, First District, Fifth Division May 9, 2003[Modification of opinion (107 Cal.App.4th 1030; 133 Cal.Rptr.2d 182) on denial of petition for rehearing.]
This modification requires the movement of text affecting pages 1043-1049 of the bound volume report.
OPINION
THE COURT.
The opinion filed April 11, 2003, is modified as follows: In part II.C.3, on page 19 [107 Cal.App.4th 1043, advance report], footnote 4 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.
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 (Aug. 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.