Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00178/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00178-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA COASTAL

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv0178 JM(WNC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

AUGMENT ADMINISTRATIVE

RECORD AND TO CONDUCT

DISCOVERY

vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF THE NAVY; SECRETARY OF

THE NAVY, Ray Mabus, in his

official capacity; and MANCHESTER

PACIFIC GATEWAY LLC ,

Defendants.

Plaintiff California Coastal Commission (“CCC”) moves to augment the

administrative record and for leave to conduct discovery. Defendants United States

Department of the Navy and the Secretary of the Navy (collectively “Navy”) oppose

the motion as does Defendant Manchester Pacific Gateway LLC (“Manchester”). For

the reasons set forth below, the court denies the motion to augment the record and

denies CCC leave to conduct discovery.

BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2013, CCC commenced this action by filing a complaint for

declaratory and injunctive relief. In broad brush CCC alleges that 15 C.F.R. §930.46

requires Defendants to prepare a supplemental consistency determination. The

regulation provides:

- 1 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 1 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(a) For proposed Federal agency activities that were previously

determined by the State agency to be consistent with the management

program, but which have not yet begun, Federal agencies shall further

coordinate with the State agency and prepare a supplemental consistency

determination if the proposed activity will affect any coastal use or

resource substantially different than originally described. Substantially

different coastal effects are reasonably foreseeable if:

(1) The Federal agencymakessubstantial changes in the proposed activity

that are relevant to management program enforceable policies; or 

(2) There are significant new circumstances or information relevant to the

proposed activity and the proposed activity's effect on any coastal use or

resource. 

15 C.F.R. §930.46. CCC alleges that Defendants “have made substantial changes in

the proposed activity” for the approved San Diego Navy Broadway Complex project

such that a supplemental consistency determination is now mandated by the regulation. 

(Compl. ¶24). Since the May 1990 approval by the CCC of the consistency

determination, CCC now alleges that there have been modifications to the original

scope of the Project and that the downtown community has experienced additional

development. (Compl. ¶¶15, 16).

Overview

1

The NavyBroadway Complex (“NBC”)site, located on federally owned land in

downtown San Diego, presently consists of Navy administrative facilitiesincluding the

Commander, Navy Region Southwest, and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center San

Diego. (Compl. ¶8). In 1982 the Department of the Navy considered options for the

consolidation of various Navy installations in the San Diego area. In light of budget

constraints, the Department of the Navy pursued a “co-location” program which

allowed the federal government to retain title to real property and to lease portions of

the property for private revenue-generating uses that could be used to offset the cost

of new administrative facilities. Congress enacted legislation in 1986, Public Law

A portion of this background section is taken directly from San Diego Navy

1

Broadway Complex Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Defense, 904 F.Supp.2d 1056, 1058-61

(S. D. Cal. 2012).

- 2 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 2 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

99–661, § 2732, 100 Stat 3816 (1986), authorizing the Secretary of the Navy to pursue

a public-private venture to implement the co-location concept at the NBC site. The

legislation mandated that “any real property leased shall be developed in accordance

with detailed plans and terms of development which have been duly formulated by the

Navy and the San Diego community through the San Diego Association of

Government's Broadway Complex Coordination Group.”

Initial Environmental Review Proceedings

To complywith its environmental obligations under NEPA, the Navy completed

an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) in 1990 and issued a Record of Decision

(“ROD”) in July 1991. After review and consideration of potential adverse

environmental impacts to the project, the City of San Diego (“City”) completed an

Environmental Impact Report in 1991. A mitigation monitoring program (“MMP”)

was prepared as part of the environmental review. The City and the Navy agreed that

all required environmental processing had been completed and that no further

environmental review would be required. In October 1991 the CCC issued a

consistency determination, agreeing that the development of the NBC was consistent

to the maximum extent practicable with the state's coastal zone management plans. 

(Compl. ¶13).

Subsequent Environmental Review Proceedings

By 2004 the real estate market in San Diego improved, and the Navy took steps

to implement the Development Agreement (“DA”) with the City. To facilitate

implementation of the DA, the Navy prepared an Environmental Assessment (“EA”)

analyzing the environmental impacts associated with implementing the 1991 ROD and

the 1992 DA. After additional submissions to appropriate agencies, in June 2006, the

Navy determined in its EA and issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (“FONSI”). 

After the Navy determined the viability of the project’s Coastal Zone Management Act

(“CZMA”) approvals, the Navy entered into a ground lease with Manchester. 

On January 7, 2009, the San Diego Navy Broadway Complex Coalition

- 3 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 3 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“Coalition”) commenced an action against Defendants herein by alleging, among

other things, that the Navy failed to provide adequate public notice before making the

FONSI. The court granted in part Coalition’s motion for summary judgment and, in

response to that order, the Navy held additional public hearings and received numerous

comments. See San Diego Broadway Complex Coalition v. U.S. Dept. of Defense,

07cv0038 JM(WMC). The Navy considered the comments and ultimately discussed

potential and actual environmental consequences in greater detail.

Upon completion of the mandated additional public comment period, Coalition

again commenced an action challenging the EA and FONSI. On October 17, 2012, the

court deniedCoalition’s motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment

in favor of Defendants on all claims. (Ct. Dkt. 11cv0154 JM, No. 76).

The Present Motion

In preparation for CCC’s challenge to the Navy’s FONSI determination, CCC

moves to supplement the record to include the ground lease entered into between the

Navy and Manchester. CCC also seeks leave to conduct discovery. At the time of oral

argument, the court requested that an unredacted copy of the ground lease be submitted

under seal to facilitate review. 

DISCUSSION

Legal Standards

The Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”)

The parties agree that the APA provides the legal framework in which to review

CCC’s merits-based challenges. The APA provides that any agency action that is

“arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”

is prohibited and shall be overturned by the court. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A); California v.

Norton, 311 F.3d 1162, 1170 (9th Cir.2002). 

Augmentation of the Administrative Record

An APA review requires the court to consider the entirety of the administrative

record. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971; 5

- 4 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 4 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S.C. §706. More specifically, “‘[T]he ‘whole’ administrative record, therefore,

consists of all documents and materials directly or indirectly considered by agency

decision-makers and includes evidence contrary to the agency's position.’” Thompson

v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 885 F.2d 551, 555 (9th Cir. 1989) (quoting Exxon Corp. v.

Department of Energy, 91 F.R.D. 26, 32 (N.D. Tex.1981)). 

The designation of the administrative record by the Navy is, like any established

administrative procedure, entitled “to a presumption of administrative regularity.” Bar

MK Raches v. Yuetter, 994 F.2d 735, 740 (10th Cir. 1993); Kern County Farm Bureau

v. Allen, 450 F.3d 1072, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006) (APA review presumesthe agency action

to be valid). To overcome this presumption, the opponent bears the burden to show

that augmentation of the record is justified. The Ninth Circuit has identified four

situations where augmentation of the record may be justified:

(1) if admission is necessary to determine whether the agency has considered all

relevant factors and has explained its decision; (2) if the agency has relied on

documents not in the record; (3) when supplementing the record is necessary to

explain technical terms or complex subject matter; or (4) where there has been

a strong showing of bad faith or improper behavior on the part of agency

decision makers.

Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019, 1030 (9th Cir.2005) (internal quotations

omitted). These exceptions are applied narrowly. Id. “To overcome the strong

presumption of regularity to which an agency is entitled, a plaintiff must put forth

concrete evidence that the documents it seeks to ‘add’ to the record were actually

before the decisionmakers.” Marcum v. Salazar, 751 F.Supp.2d 74, 78 (D. D.C. 2010). 

As noted by the Supreme Court, a reviewing court should go beyond the agency’s

record only in exceptional circumstances. Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470

U.S. 729, 743-44 (1985).

The Motion

Augmentation of the Record

CCC moves to augment the record by the submission of a complete unredacted

copy of the lease between the Navy and Manchester. The administrative record does

include a redacted version of the lease. CCC contends that the Navy has refused to

- 5 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 5 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

provide an unredacted copy of the lease on the ground that the Navy “did not directly

orindirectly consider the lease in its decision not to prepare a supplemental consistency

determination.” (Motion at p.8:17-18). 

In order to provide a more precise description of the redacted portions of the

lease, the court notes that, on May 21, 2007, the Coalition commenced a Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”) action against the Navy for a complete and unredacted copy

of the Navy-Manchester lease. San Diego BroadwayComplex Coalition v. U.S. Dept.

of Navy, 07cv00909 W(POR). Judge Whelan determined that all of the redactions,

except section 6.4 discussed below, were exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4

of FOIA as that information contained certain trade secret and commercial or

confidential information. (Ct. Dkt. 07cv0909, No. 41). 

CCC contendsthat the Navy’s representation that it did not directly or indirectly

rely on the lease is either a factual misstatement or made in bad faith. Neither

argument is sufficient to overcome the presumption of administrative regularity.

CCC contends that the Navy directly or indirectly considered the lease because

section 6.3 of the lease refers to the consistency determination. That section provides:

6.3 CCC. The Parties hereby acknowledge Government’s position is

that (a) the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) has no

jurisdiction or legal authority to issue a Coastal Development Permit for

any development of the Premises and that development may proceed so

long as the Premises is developed without Deviation (as defined below)

from Consistency Determination No. CD 47-90 dated August 21, 1990

(“Deviation” means a substantial change in the project per 15 CFR Sec.

930.46) and (b) Government further finds that there are no significant

new circumstances or information relevant to the effect of the

development on any coastal resource since the CCC concurred in CD-47-

90. Notwithstanding the foregoing the Parties recognize that it may be in the best

interests of Lessee to seek and obtain a formal finding by the

CCC, without conditions of any kind (including without limitation condo

hotel restrictions), that the CCDC Submittal is consistent with the

Adopted Findings on Consistency Determination of the CCC dated

October 9, 1991 and that no further CCC action will be required for

Lessee’s Proposed Development and Uses (the “CCC Finding”). ”

(Exh. C at 005317). Plaintiff contends that the mention of the Navy’s position that the

CCC has no authority to require a further Coastal Development Permit in connection

with 15C.F.R. §930.46(a) (requiring a supplemental determination whenever there “are

- 6 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 6 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

significant new circumstances or information relevant to the proposed activity and the

proposed activity’s effect on any coastal use or resource”) necessarily means “that the

lease was ‘directly or indirectly considered’ by the Navy in its decision not to require

a supplemental determination.” (Motion at p.9:13-14). 

This argument fails on many levels. First, CCC repeatedly asserts that the lease

must be made part of the record. Despite CCC’s protestations, the court notes that the

lease is already a part of the administrative record and those redacted portions are

properly excluded pursuant to Exemption 4 of FOIA. CCC sets forth no suggestion

that the redactions were improperly exempt from disclosure or otherwise wrongfully

redacted. Second, the Navy determined in June 2006 that there were no significant new

circumstances requiring a supplemental consistency review. (AR CCB-0025772). 

Thus, execution of the lease in November 2006 came after the Navy’s determination

that no supplemental review was required, not before that determination. Further, the

recitation of the Navy’s position in the lease - followed by a statement that “it may be

in the best interests of Lessee to seek and obtain a formal finding by the CCC” does not

establish bad faith or that the lease was considered prior to the Navy’s consistency

determination. There is simply nothing in the record to suggest that the lease was

either directly or indirectly considered by the Navy in making its consistency

determination in June 2006. CCC failsto identify reasonable non-speculative grounds

for its belief that the lease was considered by the Navy, either directly or indirectly, at

the time of the consistency determination. See Pac. Shores Subdivision Cal. Water

Dist. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 448 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D. D.C. 2006).

CCC also argues that section 6.4 of the lease (the section that Judge Whelan

found was not exempt from disclosure) supports augmenting the record. That section

provides: 

“6.4 Good Faith Efforts. Lessee shall use reasonable good faith efforts

to obtain the CCDC Determination and the CCC Finding. Government

shall use reasonable good faith efforts to cooperate with Lessee’s

obtaining the CCDC Determination and the CCC Finding.”

This section, read in conjunction with section 6.3, means, according to CCC, that the

- 7 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 7 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Navy (1) believed that Manchester’s proposal was consistent with CZMA then, and in

the future, despite any modifications to the project’s scope; and (2) had a contractual

duty to contend that the project needed no additional consistency determination even

if it believed otherwise. These strained arguments simply fail to establish bad faith on

the part of the Navy or to undermine the Navy’s representation that the lease was

neither directly or indirectly considered in its consistency determination. Mere

speculation and innuendo fail to rebut the administrative regularity of the Navy’s

determinations.

Further, CCC argues that an “unredacted version should be provided in order to

ensure that none of the redacted sections are relevant to this lawsuit.” (Motion at

p.9:22-23). While this argument is neither tethered to any legal authority or evidence,

at the time of oral argument the court requested the submission under seal of an

unredacted copy of the lease. Upon review of the redacted portions of the lease, the

court concludes that the redacted portions of the lease, like the lease itself, are not

properly included in the record because the lease was not considered, either directly or

indirectly, at the time of the Navy’s consistency determination. Furthermore, the

redacted portions of the lease do not establish a factual misstatement in the record or

bad faith on the part of the Navy. 

Finally, the court rejects CCC’s assertion that, in addition to section 6.4 (the

provision ordered to be disclosed in Judge Whelan’s FOIA order), “the Navy is likely

withholding other sections and information which it directly or indirectly considered

in deciding not to prepare a supplemental determination.” (Motion at p.10:7-9). CCC

fails to support this speculative statement with any evidence or citation to the record. 

The court notes that mere suspicion and hollow, over-reaching arguments do not

advance the Coastal Act’s lofty goals to “(a) Protect, maintain, and, where feasible,

enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural

and manmade resources. (b) Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of

coastal zone resourcestaking into account the social and economic needs of the people

- 8 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 8 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of the state.” Cal. Pub. Res. Code §30000(a) and (b). 

In sum, the court denies CCC’s motion to augment the record by including an

unredacted copy of the lease in the administrative record.

The Motion for Discovery

CCC seeks to broadly propound written discovery on the Navy and Manchester

regarding (1) the lease, or any of its provisions (presumably including attorney

communications, negotiations, drafts, and other analyses) and (2) the Navy’s

consistency determination (including emails, internal communications, analyses, and

drafts). CCC also desires to take the depositions of the individuals most

knowledgeable about the lease provisions, lease negotiations, and the decision not to

prepare a supplemental consistency determination. CCC also seeks to take the

depositions of individuals who made the consistency determination to determine if the

individuals “were influenced by any provisions in the lease, the negotiations of the

lease, the lease generally, and communications with Manchester.” (Motion at p.23:20-

22).

The court denies the motion for discovery for two primary reasons. First, as

noted by CCC, discovery is permitted “where plaintiffs make a showing of bad faith

by the agency. See Animal Def. Council v. Hodel, 840 F.2d 1432, 1437-38 (9th Cir.

1988).” (Motion at p. 12:2-4). Here, there is simply no showing of bad faith or

wrongful conduct on the part of the Navy. CCC argues that the timing of events

occurring about six months after the decision that no supplemental consistency

determination was required, “bear on” the Navy’s bad faith. CCC cites several reports,

authored in late 2006 or early 2007, with titlessuch as “Intermediate Recommendation

- That Project Modifications And Development Patterns in Downtown San Diego 1991

Might Require a Supplemental Consistency Determination.” (AR 0030180 -

00300203). CCC notes that these documents were dated both before and after the

Navy entered into the lease agreement on November 22, 2006. CCC describes these

documents by using the word “curiously” to describe this event. Rather than attribute

- 9 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 9 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

a “bad” motive to the documents, the documents may be seen as acknowledging the

common sense and unremarkable proposition that urban development has occurred in

San Diego from 1991 to the present and that the scope of the project is not identical to

that envisioned in 1991. The issue before the Navy, and bearing on this court’s

ultimate analysis, is the degree of development: whether “the proposed activity will

affect any coastal use or resource substantially different than originally described.” 15

C.F.R. §930.46(a). 

CCC also contends that there are substantial gaps in the record: (1) there are

virtually no communications in the record between the Navy and Manchester (the

Government responds that, to the extent the communications were considered, those

communications are in the record); (2) there are no internal emails, memos, analyses,

and drafts of comments about the supplemental determination issue from late

November 2006 to mid-February 2007; and (3) there are no internal emails, memos,

analyses, and drafts of comments about the supplemental determination issue fromlate

October 2011 to January 2012. When asked about apparent and alleged gaps in the

record, the Navy purportedly responded that “it included all the documents in the

record that it considered.” (Motion at p.18:7-8). The court gives little weight to the

arguments raised by CCC. While CCC attempts to draw a negative inference from the

timing of the alleged gaps in the record, the court notes that the Navy’s decision

regarding a supplemental consistency determination wasmade in June 2006, about five

months before the alleged gaps in the record. Accordingly, the court does not draw a

negative inference from the timing of the alleged gaps in the record.

2

Second, the court cannot condone the use of discovery to engage in “fishing

expeditions.” Rivera v. NIBCO, Inc., 363 F.3d 1057, 1072 (9th Cir. 2004). CCC must

articulate a reasoned basis for discovery supportive of its claim of alleged bad faith or

CCC also challenges the adequacy of the privilege logs prepared by the Navy. 

2

The Navy represents in its opposition that all issues regarding the privilege logs have

been resolved. The court declines to reach any privilege log issue and, to the extent

there is an outstanding privilege log issue, directs the parties to raise the issue before

the Magistrate Judge assigned to this case.

- 10 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 10 of 11
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

wrongdoing. Mere speculation is an inadequate ground to compel discovery in an

administrative review action. In light of CCC’s mere suspicions and innuendo of

wrongdoing on the part of the Navy, the court concludes that CCC fails to make a

threshold showing that discovery is warranted under the circumstances.

In its reply brief, CCC repeatedly states that the lease and CCC’s Staff Report

must be part of the record because, among other things, in the Navy’s October 17, 2011

letter to CCC, it referred to the lease. The Navy represents that it will make the CCC

Staff Report a part of the record even though it “has nothing to do with the project at

issue in this case” and does not directly or indirectly relate to the Navy’s decision not

to conduct a supplemental consistency review. (Navy Oppo. at p.21:2-8). 

Accordingly, there is no issue with respect to the Staff Report.

Finally, CCCargues thatsection 6.3 ofthe lease providesfurther support that the

lease must be included as part of the record. That section provides, in relevant part,

“the Government further finds that there are no significant new circumstances or

information relevant to the effect of the development on any coastal resource.”

(Emphasis added). Because the provision uses the present-tense “finds” as opposed

to the past-tense “found,” CCC construes this language to mean that “the Navy made

the finding (that no supplemental consistency determination was required) in the lease

itself.” (Reply at p.3:18-19). Without explaining how, CCC concludes that judicial

review will be thwarted unless the lease is made a part of the record. The court rejects

this argument as CCC fails to shed any light on how the tense of the chosen verb bears

on the redactions contained in the lease. 

In sum, the court denies CCC’s motion to augment the record and to conduct

discovery. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 6, 2014

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

- 11 - 13cv0178

Case 3:13-cv-00178-JM-JLB Document 46 Filed 01/06/14 Page 11 of 11