Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi
140 Cal.Rptr.3d 459
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Consolidated CEQA actions challenge the City of Lodi’s reapproval of a Browman/Wal-Mart shopping center after a revised EIR.
- Original 2004 EIR deemed inadequate for energy and urban decay; a December 2005 writ mandated revisions.
- 2007 revised EIR added urban decay and energy analyses and revised topics (project objectives, agricultural resources, alternatives).
- Citizens for Open Government and Lodi First alleged res judicata barriers and asserted inadequate analyses in the revised EIR.
- Trial court discharged the 2005 writ and denied the petitions; appeals followed, resulting in affirmance of judgments and writ discharge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deliberative process privilege exclusion—prejudice. | Lodi First contends documents were wrongly excluded. | City claimed privilege to protect deliberations. | Trial court error in privilege ruling; no prejudicial impact to appellate outcome. |
| Sufficiency of alternatives under §15126.6 (rule of reason). | Lodi First argues broader alternatives were required. | Goleta rule of reason permits a reasonable range, not every conceivable option. | Revised EIR had a substantial, reasonable range of alternatives; adequate under CEQA. |
| Baseline/urban decay and blight discussion adequacy. | EIR failed to address east Lodi blight as a baseline condition. | Blight is not same as urban decay; baseline was properly set. | Baseline did not require blight discussion; urban decay analysis adequately addressed impacts. |
| Res judicata bar on water supply challenge. | Water supply impacts should be reconsidered due to new evidence. | Prior final CEQA ruling precludes relitigation of water supply issues. | Res judicata applies; water supply issue barred in the current proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors, 52 Cal.3d 553 (1990) (rule-of-reason governs alternatives; not ironclad; Goleta standard cited for CEQA analysis scope)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (1988) (no ironclad rule; focus on feasibility and reasonableness of alternatives)
- Mountain Lion Coalition v. Fish & Game Comm., 214 Cal.App.3d 1043 (1989) (application of good faith disclosure in cumulative impacts analysis)
- California First Amendment Coalition v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.4th 159 (1998) (deliberative process privilege; required showing of public interest outweighing disclosure)
- California Oak Foundation v. County of Tehama, 174 Cal.App.4th 1217 (2009) (summary discussion of writ review for privilege where adequate remedy exists)