IRVINE, CA—Projects in coastal zones are more complicatedbecause there will likely be a coastal land-use plan and thecoastal commission can influence whether they go forward,Miller Starr Regalia's shareholder and co-chair ofits land-use practice group Arthur Coon tells GlobeSt.com. In the courtcase Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of NewportBeach, the Fourth District Court ofAppeal recently upheld the City of Newport Beach'sapproval of a mixed-use development within thecoastal zone on the 400-acre Banning Ranch property, a case thatdemonstrates just how influential coastal commissions and otherorganizations can be when it comes to development. We spokeexclusively with Coon about this case (regarding which Coon wrote ablogpost)what it means for coastal developers and what they should take awayfrom the judgment.

GlobeSt.com: What are the key takeaways our readersshould note from Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of NewportBeach?

Coon: A city or county has greatdiscretion in interpreting vague or ambiguous provisions of itsgeneral plan, so long as its actions and interpretations are notarbitrary or capricious. The discretion extends to determiningwhether development approvals the city or county grants areconsistent with the provisions of its general plan, which is afinding the local entity must make in approving all subdivisionsand other land-use entitlements.Projects in the coastal zone are more complicated because therewill likely be a local coastal land-use plan, and the coastalcommission will have either direct permitting jurisdiction or anability to review local decisions on appeal, depending on the legalstatus of the local plan.