GaviotaCoast Conservancy v. County of Santa Barbara
Lynn Ballantyne appeals the grant of a petition for writ of mandate in favor of respondent Gaviota Coast Conservancy under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; Pub. Res. Code, 21000 et seq.)[1] In 2008, County of Santa Barbara (County) adopted a mitigated negative declaration and approved Ballantyne's project to build a 13,333 square foot single family residence and garage, a 1,368 square foot detached guest house and garage, and a barn on the Gaviota Coast.
The trial court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing County to rescind approval of the project and to vacate adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. County was ordered to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) on the aesthetics and visual impact of the project looking south toward the project from Farren Road. Appellant contends that this ruling is erroneous. Court affirm concluding that County erred in adopting the mitigated negative declaration. Substantial evidence supports a "fair argument" that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and that a focused EIR is required to address the aesthetics and visual impact of the project from Farren Road. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123.)
Comments on GaviotaCoast Conservancy v. County of Santa Barbara