WIXLIB

PREPARING A DEFENSIBLEADMINISTRATIVE RECORDKatherine E. StoneLisabeth D. RothmanState Bar Certified Appellate Specialist Hatch & Parent, A Law CorporationMyers, Widders, Gibson,11911 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite350Jones & Schneider, L.L.P.5425 Everglades StreetVentura, California 93003Telephone: (805) 644-7188Facsimile: (805) 644-7621Email: Kewstone@aol.comLos Angeles, California 90049Telephone: (310) 440-2251Facsimile: (310) 440-9961Email: LRothman@HatchParent.com

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage1.Introduction. 12.Legal Requirements for Types of Administrative Records . 1A.Traditional Mandamus. 1

3.B.Administrative Mandamus. 2C.CEQA. 3(1)Scope and Contents of the Record . 3(2)Preparation of the Record. 8D.Validation Proceeding . 9E.Inverse Condemnation. 9F.Other Claims (e.g., Declaratory Relief, Injunction). 12Legal Issues. 12A.Contents of the Record. 12B.Augmenting the Record. 13C.Excluding Documents from the Record . 144.Practical Considerations . 185.Summary. 19ii

iii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIESPage(s)CasesAluisi v. County of Fresno .(1959) 159 Cal.App.2d 8233Bay-Delta Programmatic EIR Cases . (JC No. 4152, Sacramento Superior Court)8Berlinghieri v. Dept. of Motor Vehicles .(1983) 33 Cal. 3d 3926BP Alaska Exploration, Inc. v. Superior Court .(1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 124017Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council .(1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 85217Buckhart v. San Francisco Residential Rent Stabilizationand Arbitration Board v. McDonald .(1988) 197 Cal. App. 3d 10325Building Code Action v. Energy Resources Conserv. & Dev. Comm’n (1980) 102 Cal.App.3d577 6, 17California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court . (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 15915Candid Enterprises, Inc. v. Grossmont Union High School .(1985) 39 Cal.3d 87810Carty v. City of Ojai .(1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 329iv

2Chaparral Greens v. City of Chula Vista . (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 11345-6Chavez v. Civil Service Comm’n(1978) 86 Cal.App.3d 324. 13Citizens for a Better Environment v. California Dept. of Food and Agriculture (1985) 171Cal.App.3d 704 . 15v

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mt. Shasta .(1988) 198 Cal.App.3d 4338City of Los Angeles v. Superior Court . (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 5937City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission . (1978) 76 Cal.App.3d 3811, 6, 9, 13, 17County of Orange v. Superior Court . (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 15-7, 19DeVita v. County of Napa . (1995) 9 Cal.4th 7631Dominey v. Dept. of Personnel Admin. .(1988) 205 Cal.App.3d 7296, 17Elysian Heights Residents Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles .(1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 217Ensign Bickford Realty Corp. v. City Council .(1971) 68 Cal.App.3d 4672Foster v. Civil Serv. Comm’n .(1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 44413vi

Friends of Westwood, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles .(1987) 191 Cal.App.3d 2592Gentry v. City Murietta . (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 135917Government Suppliers Consolidating Services, Inc. v. Bayh . (S.D. Ind. 1990) 133 F.R.D. 53116Grine II v. Coombs .(W.D. Pa. 1997) 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1957816vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Hadley v. City of Ontario .(1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 12113Harris v. City of Philadelphia .(E.D. Pa. 1995) 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 790816Harris v. County of Riverside .(9th Cir. 1990) 904 F.2d 4972Healing v. California Coastal Commission . (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 11589-10Hensler v. City of Glendale(1994) 8 Cal.4th 1.9-12, 14Horn v. County of Ventura .(1979) 24 Cal.3d 6052-3Hothem v. City and County of San Francisco .(1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 70213Kawaoka v. City of Arroyo Grande .(9th Cir. 1994) 17 F.3d 1227,cert. denied, 513 U.S. 870 .18-19Kennedy Wholesale, Inc. v. State Bd. Of Equalization .(1991) 53 Cal.3d 2457viii

Larson v. State Personnel Bd. . (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 2655Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek .(1990) 52 Cal.3d 5317Lockard v. City of Los Angeles .(1949) 33 Cal.2d 4532Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council . (1992) 505 U.S. 100310ix

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Marylander v. Superior Court . (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 111915Morgan v. Community Redevelopment Agency .(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 2439Mountain Lion Coalition v. California Fish & Game Comm’n .(1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 10437Mumaw v. City of Glendale .(1969) 270 Cal.App.2d 4543Natural Resources Defense Council v. Fox .(S.D.N.Y. 1998) 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 457516North Dartmouth Properties, Inc. v.Dept. of Housing and Urban Development .(D. Mass. 1997) 984 F. Supp. 6516Pacifica Corp. v. City of Camarillo .(1983) 149 Cal.App.3d 1683Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax . (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 14423Patterson v. Central Coast Regional Comm. .(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 8333x

Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center v. Superior Court . (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 9314Prentiss v. City of South Pasadena . (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 852Protect Our Water v. County of Merced . (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 3627-8, 13, 18River Valley Preservation Project v. Metropolitan Transit Dev. Bd. (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th154 8xi

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Roberts v. City of Palmdale . (1993) 5 Cal.4th 36316Rogers v. Superior Court . (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 46815Romero v. County of Santa Clara .(1970) 3 Cal. App. 3d 7007Running Fence Corp. v. Superior Court .(1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 4007Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County . (1992) 10 Cal.App.4th 12126Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus . (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1446State v. Superior Court .(1974) 12 Cal.3d 2372, 12State Water Resources Control Board Cases . (JC No. 4118, Sacramento Superior Court)9Strumsky v. San Diego County Employees Retirement Assn. .(1974) 11 Cal.3d 2813Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court .(1991) 53 Cal.3d 132515xii

Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles .(1974) 11 Cal.3d 5063Trans Union LLC v. FTC .(DDC 2001) 141 F.Supp.2d 6215Western States Petroleum Association v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (“WSPA”) (1995) 9Cal.4th 559. 2, 14, 17xiii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Yost v. Thomas .(1984) 36 Cal.3d 5611Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors .(1978) 22 Cal.3d 6442xiv

xv

xvi

xvii

xviii

AuthoritiesCode of Civil Procedure sections 860, et seq. 1, 9Code of Civil Procedure section 863 . 9Code of Civil Procedure section 864 . 9Code of Civil Procedure section 1085 . 1Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5 .1-3Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(a).8-9Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(b) . 3Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(c). 3, 5, 13Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5(e). 3, 14Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6(c) . 5, 8Code of Civil Procedure sections 1084-1097. 1Code of Civil Procedure section 2018(b) . 17Evidence Code section 664. 7Evidence Code section 1040. 14xix

Government Code section 11523 . 12xx

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Government Code section 56103 . 9Government Code section 56105 . 9Government Code section 56107(c). 9Government Code section 6254(a). 15Government Code section 6254(k). 14Government Code section 6254.5 . 18Government Code section 65009(b)(1). 2Government Code section 65252.2(I)(4). 2Health & Safety Code section 33501(a). 9Health & Safety Code sections 33360-33364 . 9Public Resources Code sections 21000, et. seq. . 1Public Resources Code section 21083.1 .6-7Public Resources Code section 21167.6 .3, 5-6Public Resources Code section 21167.6(a). 8xxi

Public Resources Code section 21167.6(b) .7-8, 19Public Resources Code section 21167.6(d) . 6, 19Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e) .5-7, 16-17Public Resources Code section 21167.8(f) .8-9Public Resources Code sections 21167-21168.5. 1xxii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (cont’d)Page(s)Other Authorities64 Opinion California Attorney General 317 . 15CEQA Guidelines section 15005(a) . 5CEQA Guidelines section 15148 . 17Los Angeles Superior Court local rule 9.24(j). 19MiscellaneousCalifornia Administrative Mandamus §6.6 . 12California Administrative Mandamus §6.8 . 3California Administrative Mandamus §10.4 . 13Kostka & Zischke, . Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act6-7Osher and Wild,“Deliberative Process Privilege Shields Agencies’ Deliberations,”Los Angeles Daily Journal [August 20, 2002] . 15Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley,Guide to the California Environmental Quality Act [“Remy”].5-7, 16-18xxiii

1.Introduction.This paper will discuss creating a defensible administrative record from the perspectiveof local agencies when they approve or deny projects. The types of actions encountered bycities requiring administrative records typically include mandamus actions challenginglegislative decisions such as general and specific plan amendments and zoning amendments(C.C.P. § 1085); adjudicatory actions such as tentative maps, variances, conditional use permitsand coastal development permits (C.C.P. § 1094.5); and approvals governed by the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000, et. seq. [“CEQA”]). The need foradministrative records is not limited to mandate actions however. Validation proceedings andinverse condemnation actions may require preparation of an administrative record. Casesagainst cities often involve all these types of claims and, if brought by a landowner, may alsobe joined with an inverse condemnation claim and other claims for damages. Because the trialin these types of cases is often based exclusively on the administrative record, city attorneysshould become involved in making the administrative record during the administrative processand supervise the preparation of the record for court proceedings. Of course, this approach isbased on the usual role of the city as respondent in the litigation. Where the city is thepetitioner, considerations concerning the scope of the record are different.This paper will discuss types of administrative records, legal issues and practicalconsiderations. Except in the area of CEQA, there is very little statutory or case law on thecontents, format or process for making an administrative record. Much of the information in thispaper, therefore, is necessarily based on experience in handling various types of cases involvingadministrative records in courts throughout the state.2.Legal Requirements for Types of Administrative Records.The administrative record plays an important role in many types of litigation challenginglocal agency decisions. The legal requirements for the administrative record vary with the typeof agency action challenged. The most common legal proceedings are mandamus (mandate)cases which are governed by Code of Civil Procedure sections 1084-1097. These rules apply totraditional mandamus and administrative mandamus. Special procedures for CEQA cases arecontained in Public Resources Code sections 21167-21168.5. Other types of cases, such asvalidation proceedings, Code of Civil Procedure sections 860, et seq., do not specify rules for theadministrative record.A.Traditional Mandamus.1

Traditional mandamus, Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, is the procedure for judicialreview of local legislative and ministerial decisions. Legislative actions include the adoption oramendment of a general or specific plan (Yost v. Thomas (1984) 36 Cal.3d 561, 570); zoning (id.);incorporation and annexation (see, City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency Formation Commission(1978) 76 Ca

PREPARING A DEFENSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD Katherine E. Stone Lisabeth D. Rothman State Bar Certified A