Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Com.

• Decision Date: 06 April 1976
• Citation: 129 Cal.Rptr. 57,57 Cal.App.3d 76
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Parties: NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Respondents; The SEA RANCH ASSOCIATION et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents. Civ. 37225.

Page 57

129 Cal.Rptr. 57

57 Cal.App.3d 76

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC., et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ZONE CONSERVATION COMMISSION et al., Defendants and Respondents The SEA RANCH ASSOCIATION et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Civ. 37225.

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

April 6, 1976.

John Roger Beers, Ballard Jamieson, Jr., Palo Alto, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Carl Boronkay, Asst. Atty. Gen., Roderick Walston, Donatas Januta, Deputy Attys. Gen., San Francisco, for defendants and respondents.

Misuraca & Beyers, Malcolm A. Misuraca and James L. Beyers, Santa Rosa, for real parties in interest and respondents.

ELKINGTON, Associate Justice.

This appeal concerns the validity of certain 'development' permits issued by respondent California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (hereafter 'Commission') under authority of the California Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972 (hereafter sometimes the 'Act') found in Public Resources Code sections 27000--27650, inclusive. The permits authorized construction of 15 homes on lots owned by the individual real parties in interest of this appeal, in a subdivision called 'Sea Ranch' located on the northernmost coast of Sonoma County.

Hereafter statutory references, unless otherwise noted, will be to the appropriate sections of the Act as they appear in the Public Resources Code.

The Act was an initiative measure approved by the state's electors in 1972. Its purpose and policy were stated as follows:

'The people of the State of California hereby find and declare that the California coastal zone is a distinct and valuable natural resource belonging to all the people and existing as a delicately balanced ecosystem; that the permanent protection of the remaining natural and scenic resources of the coastal zone is a paramount concern to present and future residents of the state and nation; that in order to promote the public safety, health, and welfare, and to protect public and private property, wildlife, marine fisheries, and other ocean resources, and the natural environment, it is necessary to preserve the ecological balance of the coastal zone and prevent its further deterioration and destruction; that it is the policy of the state to preserve, protect, and, where possible, to restore the resources of the coastal zone for the enjoyment of the current and succeeding generations; and that to protect the coastal zone it is necessary:

'(a) To study the coastal zone to determine the ecological planning principles and assumptions needed to ensure conservation of coastal zone resources.

'(b) To prepare, based upon such study and in full consultation with all affected governmental agencies, private interests, and the general public, a comprehensive, coordinated, enforceable plan for the orderly, long-range conservation and management of the natural resources of the coastal zone, to be known as the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan.

'(c) To ensure that any development which occurs in the permit area during the study and planning period will be consistent with the objectives of this division.

'(d) To create the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, and six regional coastal zone conservation commissions, to implement the provisions of this division.' (§ 27001; emphasis added.)

The Act created the Commission (§ 27200), and several regional commissions (§ 27201). The Commission was mandated (by § 27300) to 'prepare, adopt, and submit to the Legislature for implementation the California Coastal Zone Conservation Plan' (hereafter the 'Plan'). Submission of the Plan was required on or before December 1, 1975. (§ 27320.)

With reference to the Plan the Act provided:

'The coastal zone plan shall be consistent with all of the following objectives:

'(a) The maintenance, restoration, and enhancement of the overall quality of the coastal zone environment, including, but not limited to, its amenities and aesthetic values.

'(b) The continued existence of optimum populations of all species of living organisms.

'(c) The orderly, balanced utilization and preservation, consistent with sound conservation principles, of all living and nonliving coastal zone resources.

'(d) Avoidance of irreversible and irretrievable commitments of coastal zone resources.' (§ 27302.)

Apparently in recognition of the probability that it would be unreasonable or unjust, and possibly unlawful or unconstitutional, to prevent all development within the state's coastal zone until the Plan's adoption by the Legislature, the Act authorized interim permit control by the Commission. It stated:

'On or after February 1, 1973, any person wishing to perform any development within the permit area shall obtain a permit authorizing such development from the regional commission and, if required by law, from any city, county, state, regional or local agency.' (§ 27400.)

Additionally, the Act provided:

'No permit shall be issued unless the regional commission has first found, both of the following:

'(a) That the development will not have any substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect.

'(b) That the development is consistent with the findings and declarations set forth in Section 27001 and with the objectives set forth in Section 27302.

'The applicant shall have the burden of proof on all issues.' (§ 27402; emphasis added.)

'The application of these factors (of § 27402) requires the Commission to undertake a delicate balancing of the the effect of each proposed development (i.e., the subject of the requested permit) upon the environment of the coast at a predicate to the issuance of a permit.' (State of California v. Superior Court (Veta Co.), 12 Cal.3d 237, 248, 115 Cal.Rptr. 497, 504, 524 P.2d 1281, 1288.)

And the Act required that:

'All permits shall be subject to reasonable terms and conditions in order to ensure:

'(a) Access to publicly owned or used beaches, recreation areas, and natural reserves is increased to the maximum extent possible by appropriate dedication.

'(b) Adequate and properly located public recreation areas and wildlife preserves are reserved.

'(c) Provisions are made for solid and liquid waste treatment, disposition, and management which will minimize adverse effects upon coastal zone resources.

'(d) Alterations to existing land forms and vegetation, and construction of structures shall cause minimum adverse effect to scenic resources and minimum danger of floods, landslides, erosion, siltation, or failure in the event of earthquake.' (§ 27403.)

The 15 lot owners seeking to build homes had obtained permission to build by the appropriate authorities of Sonoma County. Following the Act's enactment they applied to the proper regional commission (hereafter 'regional Commission') for permits under section 27400. The permits were granted.

Deeming themselves aggrieved by the Regional Commission's action, the appellants here, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and California Coastal Alliance, Inc., appealed to the Commission under the following procedure of the Act:

'(a) An applicant, or any person aggrieved by approval of a permit by the regional commission, may appeal to the commission.

'(b) The commission may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the regional commission. If the commission fails to act within 60 days after notice of appeal has been filed, the regional commission's decision shall become final.

'(c) The commission may decline to hear appeals that it determines raise no substantial issues. Appeals it hears shall be scheduled for a de novo public hearing and shall be decided in the same manner and by the same vote as provided for decisions by the regional commissions.' (§ 27423.)

Following a public hearing and the adoption of a written report and 'Findings and Declarations,' the Commission ordered that the requested permits be granted.

Appellants thereupon sought 'judicial review of such decision or action by filing a petition for a writ of mandate' in the superior court, as permitted by section 27424, and in accordance with the procedure of Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5. The superior court denied the petition for mandate and the instant appeal followed.

The respondents Commission and Regional Commission raise a threshold question which should first be considered by us. They state the question as 'whether Commission action on a permit application is (1) Quasi-legislative, in which event the Commission decision must be upheld unless determined to be arbitrary, capricious, or totally lacking in evidentiary support, or (2) Quasi-judicial, in which event the Commission decision must be upheld unless the Commission determination is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.' They contend that the subject proceedings were quasi-legislative in nature. Appellants on the other hand insist that they were quasi-judicial.

The distinction between the quasi-legislative and the quasi-judicial is sometimes difficult to determine. Respondents, correctly summarizing the authority they have offered for their contention, concede that 'whether a particular action of an administrative agency is quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial depends upon whether the enabling statute delegated a function which is 'essentially legislative' or 'essentially judicial. " The Commission was obliged to hold a public de novo hearing, to consider the evidence adduced and then, in its discretion, to allow or disallow the requested permits. Further, it was required to make written findings supportive of its determination. ¹ We opine that, beyond any doubt, the subject proceedings were quasi-judicial and we so hold.

On this appeal our task is similar to that of the superior court. It extends 'to the questions whether the (Commission) has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial;...