22 F. Supp. 3d 1081
S.D. Cal.2014Background
- CCC sued Jan 23, 2013 to enjoin NBC redevelopment until Navy prepares a CZMA supplemental consistency determination; court denied CCC’s summary judgment and granted defendants’ summary judgment on all claims.
- NBC site redevelopment in downtown San Diego involved a long history of CZMA/NEPA reviews, development agreements, and a 1990 CD finding NBC consistent with the California Coastal Act.
- The Navy issued a 1990 CD and a 1991 ROD under NEPA; later environmental reviews and a 2006 EA led to a ground lease with Manchester for redevelopment.
- CCC repeatedly asserted in 2006–2011 that substantial changes and new circumstances warranted a CZMA supplemental CD; Navy consistently refused.
- Numerous related lawsuits (NBCC, Navy Broadway I/II, Manchester v. CCC) and ongoing litigation influenced procedural posture and considerations of laches and limitations.
- Court ultimately held the Navy’s determination that a supplemental CD was not required was not arbitrary or capricious and granted summary judgment to the Federal Defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CZMA supplement mandatory? | CCC argues substantial changes/new information require a supplemental CD. | Navy contends no substantial changes/new information triggered CZMA §930.46(a). | No; Navy’s decision not to require a supplemental CD was not arbitrary or capricious. |
| Laches bars suit? | CCC alleges the delay was diligent and justified. | Navy asserts prejudice and inexcusable delay. | No; court found lack of diligence and prejudice insufficient to invoke laches. |
| Timeliness under APA | Action timely under APA six-year limit. | Final agency action occurred with 2009 EA; suit filed 2013 within period. | Timely filed within APA limitations. |
| Substantial change analysis—downtown area | Increased development, Midway Museum, parking/traffic impacts are substantial. | Navys’ analyses in 2006/2009 EA acknowledged changes but found no substantial impacts. | Not substantial; Navy’s determination reasonable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Occidental Engineering Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1985) (review of agency decision under APA; record-based scrutiny allowed)
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1983) (arbitrary and capricious standard; need for reasoned decisionmaking)
- Akiak Native Cmty. v. U.S. Postal Serv., 213 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2000) (APA review; substantial evidence requirement for agency action)
- Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys., 419 U.S. 281 (U.S. 1974) (highways; deference to agency path reasonably discernible)
- Save the Peaks Coalition v. U.S. Forest Service, 669 F.3d 1025 (9th Cir. 2012) (laches in environmental challenges; delay disfavors plaintiffs)
- Hells Canyon Preservation Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 593 F.3d 923 (9th Cir. 2010) (APA review; narrow standard of review for agency choices)
- Delaware Dept. of Natural Resources v. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 685 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2012) (CZMA-related supplemental CD considerations; substantial changes)