California Coastal Commission v. Office of Administrative Law

Citations: 210 Cal. App. 3d 758; 258 Cal. Rptr. 560; 1989 Cal. App. LEXIS 494Docket: A039702

Court: California Court of Appeal; May 17, 1989; California; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case involves an appeal related to the California Coastal Commission's interpretive guidelines adopted post-January 30, 1977. The primary issue is whether these guidelines require review by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Pacific Legal Foundation requested OAL to classify the guidelines as regulations subject to APA review. OAL agreed, declaring the guidelines invalid until properly adopted under the APA. The Coastal Commission then sought a ruling from the superior court, which granted summary judgment in favor of the Commission, ruling that its guidelines are exempt from APA requirements. The court invalidated OAL's determination and ordered OAL to notify relevant parties of this invalidation. The appellate court affirmed the superior court's judgment without addressing the broader regulatory status of the guidelines, focusing instead on their exemption from the APA. The court cited Public Resources Code section 30333, which outlines the Commission's authority to adopt rules and regulations, indicating that such rules must align with existing laws unless specifically exempted.

Public Resources Code section 30620 mandates the California Coastal Commission to establish interim procedures for coastal development permit applications and exemption claims by January 30, 1977. These procedures must include interpretive guidelines to assist local authorities and stakeholders in applying coastal zone policies before local coastal programs are certified. Importantly, these guidelines cannot alter the authority of regional commissions or other agencies. By May 1, 1977, the Commission is required to adopt permanent procedures, which will incorporate the interim guidelines and be made accessible to local governments and the public. Subsequent modifications to these procedures may occur after public hearings, barring emergencies.

The interpretation of these provisions is contentious. While subdivision (a) addresses interim procedures and subdivision (b) addresses permanent ones, the specific nature of the interpretive guidelines is only detailed in subdivision (a)(3). The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) interprets section 30333 as exempting only the interim guidelines from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), suggesting that guidelines adopted after January 30, 1977, are not exempt. Conversely, the superior court ruled in favor of the Commission, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation in Pacific Legal Foundation v. California Coastal Commission, which determined that the guidelines established in 1980 were permanent and exempt from the APA due to the express legislative exemption in section 30620.

The court noted that OAL's argument regarding the binding nature of the Supreme Court's ruling as mere dictum is unfounded, as the court's analysis of the guidelines and the availability of declaratory relief under section 30803 was integral to the decision. The binding precedent established by the Supreme Court remains relevant to the current proceedings.

An action for declaratory relief must be brought under Public Resources Code section 30803, not under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which confirms that relief under the APA is unavailable. The court clarified that while opinions are not authoritative on unaddressed issues, footnote 4 resolved an issue considered in the case. A holding does not need to be entirely pertinent to the final ruling to be binding on lower courts, and even Supreme Court dicta should not be disregarded by intermediate courts without strong justification. The Office of Administrative Law (OAL) argued that the Pacific Legal Foundation decision predated Government Code section 11347.5, which mandates state agencies to file regulations but does not require Commission approval of guidelines, rendering the enactment irrelevant. OAL contended the Supreme Court did not consider certain issues, but the court asserted it cannot assume the Supreme Court overlooked statutory definitions and dates. OAL's request to disregard footnote 4 due to alleged inconsistency with California law was denied, as lower courts are bound by established case law. The judgment was affirmed, with concurrence from Racanelli, P.J., and Newsom, J., and a petition for Supreme Court review was denied. The document notes the adoption date of the guidelines in question as February 20, 1980.