City of Chula Vista v. Superior Court

• Decision Date: 02 July 1982
• Citation: 133 Cal.App.3d 472,183 Cal.Rptr. 909
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: CITY OF CHULA VISTA, etc., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Real Party in Interest. Civ. 26584.

Page 909

183 Cal.Rptr. 909

133 Cal.App.3d 472

CITY OF CHULA VISTA, etc., Petitioner, v. SUPERIOR COURT OF the COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, Respondent, CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION, Real Party in Interest.

Civ. 26584.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

July 2, 1982.

As Modified July 7, 1982.

Ronald A. Zumbrun, Harold J. Hughes, Thomas E. Hookano, Elleene A. Kirkland, Sacramento, Clifton E. Reed, Chula Vista, Hillyer & Irwin, San Diego, and Howard E. Susman, Sacramento, for petitioner.

Thomas I. McKnew, Jr., and R. Curtis Ballantyne, Los Angeles, as amicus curiae on behalf of petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

George Deukmejian, Atty. Gen., N. Gregory Taylor, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Anthony M. Summers, Deputy Atty. Gen., for real party in interest.

COLOGNE, Associate Justice.

This petition for extraordinary relief arises out of a dispute between the California Coastal Commission (Commission) and the City of Chula Vista (City) concerning the proper application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 ("Coastal Act" or "Act") (PUB. RESOURCES CODE, § 30000¹ et seq.) in the context of the Commission's refusal to approve City's Local Coastal Program (LCP) outlining future development plans for part of south San Diego Bay. The petition was filed originally in the California Supreme Court on account of the great public importance of the issues and the need for a uniform statewide resolution The procedural history of the matter may be outlined as follows: In the early 1970's before the present Coastal Act was passed, the City acting jointly with the San Diego Unified Port District formulated a development plan for its bayfront known as the Bayfront Redevelopment Plan, formally adopted in 1974. Then the Coastal Act was enacted, requiring each local government lying within the coastal zone to prepare a "local coastal program" for its portion of the coastal area (§ 30500, subd. (a)). ² A local coastal program is defined as a package of land use plans, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and, within sensitive coastal resource areas, other implementing actions which satisfy the policies and restrictions of the Coastal Act (§ 30108.6). The City reshaped its Bayfront Redevelopment Plan in light of the Coastal Act policies and requirements and submitted it for approval to the Commission in accordance with statutory requirements on February 2, 1979. On May 4, 1979, the regional commission suggested extensive revisions and amendments to City's LCP and approved the program conditioned upon such revisions. The plan with the regional commission's recommendations was submitted for further review to the Commission, and City objected to the revisions before the statewide Commission. However, after extensive hearings, the state Commission on September 18, 1979, adopted some of the proposed findings of the regional commission and granted conditional approval of the LCP.

but the high court has transferred it here. We have issued our alternative writ.

City then commenced judicial review procedures by filing a petition for administrative mandate review (Code Civ.Proc., § 1094.5) in the superior court on November 16, 1979. After extensive hearings and review of the administrative transcript, the superior court rendered its peremptory writ of mandate on March 5, 1981, remanding the matter to the Commission with directions to withdraw the conditional certification because the Commission has no conditional approval power and must either approve or disapprove the LCP. The Commission then held further hearings, withdrew its approval, and filed its return to the peremptory writ May 5, 1981, setting out what it had done. Over City's objections, the court discharged the writ but granted City leave to file a supplemental petition for review, which it did on June 22, 1981, again under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.

The supplemental petition forms the basis for this proceeding. It charges the Commission acted improperly in a number of ways: (1) it used an improper review standard exercising its independent judgment rather than deferring to City's legislative power; (2) it improperly found various areas to be "sensitive environments," "marine habitats," or other categories of land worthy of special protection; (3) it did not observe the special permission of the Coastal Act for development in "already developed parts of South San Diego Bay."

After hearings on the supplemental petition beginning September 21, 1981, the superior court entered formal judgment in favor of the Commission. It found the Commission may exercise its independent judgment in deciding whether an LCP conforms to the statewide policies of the Coastal Act; its approval or refusal to approve an LCP is reviewable in the superior court under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 according to the substantial evidence test of review; and here the Commission's findings and order are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the final judgment dated November 16, 1981, denied City the writ of mandate.

City sought extraordinary relief by way of a writ of mandate. Although conceding the appealability of the superior court judgment, City contended the great public importance of the issues calls for immediate relief.

In its response to the petition, the Commission did not oppose issuance of a prerogative writ. However, it stated there is a rising tide of litigation which threatens to interfere with coastal planning. For these reasons we have issued an alternative writ to settle the important legal issues raised in this and similar cases (see, e.g., State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Company), 12 Cal.3d 237, 115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 524 P.2d 1281).

SUMMARY OF FACTS

To facilitate understanding, the basic facts will be summarized before stating the contentions of the parties. City's coastal zone is bounded by Interstate 5 on the east, San Diego Bay on the west, the corporate boundary with National City to the north, and the San Diego city boundary to the south. The distinctive features of the area are the Sweetwater Marsh complex, Gunpowder Point, the "D" Street fill, and the Vener farm and marsh. The Sweetwater Marsh is a complex of healthy tidal marshlands supporting a wide variety of wildlife. Gunpowder Point is a 40-acre upland area next to the bay and the marsh which is the site of an abandoned and decaying munitions factory.

The "D" Street fill is a 90-acre upland north of the Sweetwater River Channel which was created by the dredging of the 24th Street Channel. It lies partly within the jurisdiction of the San Diego Unified Port District. A portion is nesting grounds for the California least tern, an endangered species.

The Vener farm area is an undeveloped area including some wetlands east of the marsh complex and west of Interstate 5. This area and the Sweetwater Marsh area are admittedly places which contain significant biological resources entitled to special protection and enhancement.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES

As stated above, the superior court found substantial evidence supports the Commission's reasons for disapproving part of the City's LCP, and further found the Commission was entitled to exercise its independent judgment in deciding whether the LCP conformed to coastal policies. The court also determined the test of judicial review to be whether substantial evidence supported the Commission's findings under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 (which is made specifically applicable to review of the Commission's findings, § 30801).

The Commission quarrels with only one ruling, namely, the scope of judicial review of Commission procedures. Commission contends it acts in a quasi-legislative capacity, rather than a quasi-judicial manner when it approves or disapproves an LCP, and that such quasi-legislative administrative adjudications are not subject to substantial evidence review under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, but can only be challenged by traditional writ of mandate (Code Civ.Proc., § 1085) on the basis of being arbitrary, capricious or lacking in evidentiary support.

The City's contentions are more numerous. First, it contends its legislative activity in drawing up the LCP cannot be challenged by Commission except on the basis of being completely arbitrary, capricious, or lacking in evidentiary support. Drawing upon a statement on the scope of judicial review of Industrial Welfare Commission action in California Hotel & Motel Assn. v. Industrial Welfare Com., 25 Cal.3d 200, at page 212, 157 Cal.Rptr. 840, 599 P.2d 31, City contends the scope of Commission review should be: "The Commission must ensure that the local government has adequately considered all relevant factors and has demonstrated a rational connection between those factors, the provisions of its local coastal program, and the policies of the Coastal Act." City suggests the Commission must be satisfied that statewide interests were balanced against local interests, and environmental concerns against City further contends the Commission has invaded City's province and has made incorrect decisions in these specific respects: (1) Gunpowder Point is misdescribed as an environmentally sensitive habitat area per sections 30107.5 and 30240, when it is a degraded area which is adjacent to a sensitive habitat; (2) similarly, both Gunpowder Point and the "D" Street fill are mischaracterized as entitled to protection as marine resources or biologically productive wetlands (§§ 30230, 30231), although they are land environments; (3) the Commission has misapplied section 30233, subdivision (c), regulating diking, filling and dredging in wetlands, to the proposed extension of Tidelands Avenue and the Gunpowder Point access road, despite specific authorization in the statute for development of already developed parts of south San Diego Bay.

economic concerns, but it cannot upset the balance struck by the local government unless that balance...