215 Cal. App. 4th 397
Cal. Ct. App.2013Background
- Coastside appeals a trial court ruling on NCC regulations implementing MLPA MMAs/MPAs in the North Central Coast region.
- MLPA and Improvement Act created a coordinated framework for MPAs/MMAs with master plans, regional processes, and interagency review.
- DFG/Resources Agency pursued a public-private MLPA initiative; NCC regulations were adopted via the NCC MOU after the master plan was not completed timely.
- The NCC regulations were challenged as to administrative exhaustion and statutory authority, and as to the Coordinating Committee review requirement.
- Trial court held exhaustion under Government Code 11346.9 applicable, but found NCC regulations within statutory authority and not requiring Coordinating Committee review.
- Appellate decision affirms the NCC regulations were within authority and that exhaustion doctrine is inapplicable here; evidentiary and notice issues are deemed moot or non-prejudicial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies applies | Coastside—exhaustion required under APA, public comment insufficient. | Coastside failed to exhaust; APA procedures apply before suit. | Exhaustion does not bar; alternative judicial remedy exists and applies. |
| Whether the NCC regulations were within statutory authority to designate MPAs before master plan completion | Authority limited until master plan completed; NCC overstep. | Statutory authority to designate MPAs existed (2861(b)/(c)), plus 1590 and other provisions. | NCC regulations were within statutory authority. |
| Whether Coordinating Committee review was required for NCC MMA designations | Mandatory review under Improvement Act 36800 applies to NCC proposals. | NCC Proposal is via DFG/Resources Agency; not outside entity; review not mandatory. | Coordinating Committee review is directory, not mandatory, and NCC regulations can stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Coastside Fishing Club v. California Resources Agency, 158 Cal.App.4th 1183 (Cal. App. Dist. 4th 2008) (context for MLPA framework and prior related ruling)
- Tidewater Marine Western, Inc. v. Bradshaw, 14 Cal.4th 557 (Cal. 1996) (APA regulatory process overview and notice requirements)
- City of Susanville v. Lee C. Hess Co., 45 Cal.2d 684 (Cal. 1955) (alternative judicial remedies when administrative remedies exist)
- San Elijo Ranch, Inc. v. County of San Diego, 65 Cal.App.4th 608 (Cal. App. 1998) (exhaustion in context of related statutory schemes )
- Muir v. Steinberg, 197 Cal.App.2d 264 (Cal. App. 1962) (exception to exhaustion when judicial remedy provided)
- People v. McGee, 19 Cal.3d 948 (Cal. 1977) (mandatory vs. directory procedural requirements; purpose of provisions)