Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record
LAW & MOTION CALENDAR TENTATIVE RULINGS
July 2, 2026
10:00 AM
CX-101
JUDGE WILLIAM D. CLASTER
Department CX101 Phone Number: (657) 622-5301
The Court will hear oral argument on all matters at the time noticed for the hearing. If you would prefer to submit the matter on your papers without oral argument, please advise the clerk by calling (657) 622-5301. The Court will not entertain a request for continuance nor fili ng of further documents once the ruling has been posted.
APPEARANCES: Appearances, whether remote or in person, must be in compliance with new Code of Civil Procedure §367.75, California Rules of Court, Rule 3.672, and Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Appearance Procedure and Information, Civil Unlimited and Complex, located at https://www.occourts.org/mediarelations/covid/Civil_Unlimited_and_Complex_Appearance_Procedure_and_Information.pdf.
COURT REPORTERS: Official court reporters (i.e. court reporters employed by the Court) are NOT provided for any matters in this department. If a party desires a record of a law and motion proceeding, it will be the party’s responsibility to provide a court reporter. Parties must comply with the Court’s policy on the use of privately retained court reporters which can be found at:
• Civil Court Reporter Pooling; and
• For additional information, please see the court’s website at Court Reporter Interpreter Services for additional information regarding the availability of court reporters.
• Civil Limited, Unlimited and Complex (Updated June 11, 2020)
# CASE NAME MATTER 1 Center for Natural Lands Management vs. City of Dana Point
2025-01524239
Plaintiff’s Motion to Augment the Administrative Record MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD
CNLM’s motion to augment the record, or in the alternative, request for judicial notice is DENIED.
At issue are six documents relating to 2026 enforcement proceedings instituted by the California Coastal Commission against CNLM. Four of the documents are from the enforcement proceedings themselves, and two of the documents are letters between CNLM and the City regarding the proceedings.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
As to augmenting the record, “A fundamental rule of administrative law is that a court’s review is confined to an examination of the record before the administrative agency at the time it takes the action being challenged.” (Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1144 (emphasis added).) The City’s underlying CEQA determinations occurred in October 2025. These six documents were not, and could not have been, before the City at that time. Pub. Res. Code § 21167.6(e), which sets forth categories of documents that are to be included in the record, is broad in scope, but its breadth is not unlimited. None of CNLM’s authorities on record augmentation concerns documents that post-date the agency decision at issue. “[D]ocuments generated after the [agency] decision are generally inadmissible on the abuse of discretion issue,” and the Court sees no reason
to depart from that rule here. (San Francisco Tomorrow v. City and County of San Francisco (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 498, 533 (emphasis original).)
As to judicial notice, “[I]t would never be proper to take judicial notice of evidence that (1) is absent from the administrative record, and (2) was not before the agency at the time it made its decision. This is so because only relevant evidence is subject to judicial notice [citation], and the only evidence that is relevant to the question of whether there was substantial evidence to support a[n agency’s] administrative decision . . . is that which was before the agency at the time it made its decision.” (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 573 fn. 4.)
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
In lieu of a tentative ruling, the Court has prepared a list of questions the parties should be prepared to address. Depending on how the hearing progresses, the Court may invite further briefing on some topics.
1. To the extent the City’s initial study or the exemption memorandum may describe the project inaccurately (which the Court understands is a point of contention), what effect would that have on whether these documents may be considered substantial evidence to support the City’s determinations?
2. The exemption memorandum finds subdivision (a) of SERP (Public Resources Code § 21080.56) inapplicable because the project isn’t limited “exclusively” to conservation uses. It also includes educational, environmental justice, etc. uses. Doesn’t subdivision (b) of SERP allow for incidental public uses? Why doesn’t that subsection foreclose the City’s argument on this point?
3. The exemption memorandum also finds subdivision (a) inapplicable because the proposed trail closures go beyond what is “‘exclusively’ necessary” to conserve PPM populations. Does SERP only apply when a project provides the bare minimum necessary for conservation purposes, or may a project go beyond the bare minimum? The Court notes that the word “necessary” is found nowhere in subdivision (a).
4. The 2025 exemption memorandum concludes there is no connection between trail access and PPM populations based on evaluation of data though 2022. (AR 4041) However, CNLM’s application included population data through 2024. (AR 8473 et seq.) Why didn’t the exemption memorandum address the two extra years of data? Can the City properly rely on an expert opinion that omits the two most recent years of PPM population data?
5. The 2025 exemption memorandum quotes an October 2021 email from CNLM staff about the unreliability of PPM population data. Assuming this email is accurate about data collected through October 2021, how is it relevant to data collected after October 2021?