Citizens for Ceres v. City of Ceres
206 Cal. Rptr. 3d 918
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- City of Ceres certified an EIR and approved a shopping-center redevelopment anchored by a new Walmart Supercenter that would replace an existing Walmart.
- Citizens for Ceres filed a CEQA writ petition challenging the EIR on multiple grounds (urban decay mitigation, landfill/recycling impacts, air-pollution health analysis, and adequacy of the statement of overriding considerations); trial court denied relief and judgment was entered for the city and Walmart.
- While litigation proceeded, dispute arose about privileged communications between city and Walmart; this court earlier held many privilege claims waived (Citizens for Ceres I).
- Walmart reimbursed the city $48,889.71 for outside-counsel preparation of the administrative record; after prevailing, Walmart sought to recover that amount in a costs memorandum; Citizens moved to tax costs and the trial court struck the administrative-record cost based on Hayward Area Planning.
- This appeal: the court affirmed the denial of Citizens’ CEQA challenges on the merits, but reversed the trial court’s taxation of costs and held Walmart may seek recovery of administrative-record preparation costs (subject to reasonableness review on remand).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Urban-decay mitigation sufficiency | EIR failed to mandate adequate mitigation for urban decay from project | EIR’s mitigation and analysis were adequate | Court rejected Citizens; affirmed EIR on this claim |
| 2. Landfill/recycling impacts analysis/mitigation | EIR insufficiently analyzed and mitigated landfill and recycling impacts | EIR adequately analyzed and imposed appropriate mitigation | Court rejected Citizens; affirmed EIR on this claim |
| 3. Air-pollution impact → human-health correlation | EIR lacked adequate information linking pollution impacts to health effects | EIR’s analysis satisfied CEQA disclosure requirements | Court rejected Citizens; affirmed EIR on this claim |
| 4. Statement of overriding considerations support | Statement lacked substantial evidence to justify overriding significant impacts | Substantial evidence supported the statement of overriding considerations | Court rejected Citizens; affirmed EIR and statement |
| 5. Recoverability of administrative-record preparation costs | Real party in interest (Walmart) cannot recover costs paid to the agency for preparing the record when agency prepared it (relying on Hayward Area Planning) | Prevailing real party that reimbursed the agency may recover costs under CCP 1032/1033.5 so long as record was prepared by a statutorily authorized method; trial court should review reasonableness | Court rejected Hayward Area Planning’s categorical bar; held Walmart may seek recovery; remanded for reasonableness determination |
Key Cases Cited
- Hayward Area Planning Assn. v. City of Hayward, 128 Cal.App.4th 176 (court limited who may recover administrative-record costs; discussed agency incentives to control costs)
- Citizens for Ceres v. Superior Court, 217 Cal.App.4th 889 (prior appellate opinion holding privilege waiver for communications between city and Walmart)
- City of West Hollywood v. Beverly Towers, Inc., 52 Cal.3d 1184 (background on vesting tentative subdivision map)