but if the CEQA proceedings are fact-based, a broader requirement for standing is not a bad thing, right?
An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.
The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.
Developing a bunch of enormous single-family homes in hillside slide zones is just about the only thing that is legal by-right in all East Bay cities. That's the sick joke!
I'm not sure if you are referring to the big tacky mansions on Highland Terrace in Fremont, but if you are those are now the most heavily-assessed properties in Alameda County.
An opposite example might be, in the East Bay hills, on a steep area of dense old vegetation, a developer wants to bulldoze the entire thing, add heavy landscaping and drainage, and built four dozen "premium" homes. If the city council member is looking at the hundreds of millions of dollars that will change hands, over an are that is literally no dollars now, then the plan gets approved. You might guess, this is a true example and a developer from Hong Kong put their name on the project and it was built.
The case of a beach is also not-obvious, as it is world-scale irreplaceable.