In Day v. City of Glendale (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 817, when deciding whether issuance of a grading permit was ministerial or discretionary, the court said: "CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of statutory language. A project of mixed ministerial-discretionary character, as was the grading permit here, should be treated as a discretionary project. As was said in People v. Department of Housing and Community Development, 45 Cal.App.3d 185, 194 . . ., '. . . . CEQA draws a line between purely ministerial and entirely discretionary projects but does not mention those having both characteristics. Statutory policy, not semantics, forms the standard for segregating discretionary from ministerial functions . . . . CEQA is to be interpreted to "'afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.'" . . . So construed, section 21080 extends CEQA's scope to hybrid projects of a mixed ministerial-discretionary character; doubt whether a project is ministerial or discretionary should be resolved in favor of the latter characterization.' "Moreover, the discretionary-ministerial designation of a project is not necessarily determinative of its environmental impact. We do not believe the Legislature intended to exclude from the ambit of CEQA any project involving, as here, cut, movement, and fill of massive sections of earth. All parties agree that the grading project will have a significant effect on the environment. The issuance of the grading permit is the only point at which the environmental impact of the project may be publicly considered before mountains are moved and 70 acres of canyon are filled."