Consolidated Irrigation District v. Superior Court
205 Cal. App. 4th 697
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- CID petitions for writ of mandate after Fresno superior court denied limited discovery, record augmentation, and Public Records Act petition in a CEQA challenge to Selma’s EIR for Rockwell Pond Commercial Project.
- Court held oral hearings; key questions included interpretation of 21167.6(e)(7) on written evidence, (e)(10) on public agency files, and (e)(4) on transcripts/minutes.
- Court concluded tape recordings qualify as “other written materials” and should be in the record; “submitted” means readily available to agency staff.
- Court also held subconsultant files were not in the City’s possession and thus not subject to mandatory disclosure under the Public Records Act.
- Court affirmed some aspects and reversed others, directing augmentation of the administrative record to include audio tapes and several listed documents, while denying discovery to access subconsultant files.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether audio recordings are “other written materials” in the record of proceedings under CEQA | CID contends audio tapes should be included as “other written materials.” | City argues transcripts existed or minutes suffice; audio may not be required. | Audio recordings qualify as “other written materials” and must be included. |
| Meaning of “written evidence … submitted” under 21167.6(e)(7) | CID argues documents referenced in comments should be submitted to the agency. | City/Developer contend documents not readily submitted; burden on commenter. | “Submitted to” means readily available; documents with specific URLs or identified as provided are included; mere general website references are not. |
| Whether subconsultant files are within “public agency’s files on the project” under 21167.6(e)(10) | CID asserts subconsultant files should be within City’s possession and record. | City did not own/control subconsultant files; not in City’s possession. | Subconsultant files are not within the City’s possession; not part of the ROP under (e)(10). |
| Whether discovery or augmentation was proper given CEQA scope and possession issues | CID sought discovery to locate omitted documents; augmentation to include them. | Discovery not warranted for subconsultant files; certification issues. | Discovery denied for subconsultant files; augmentation granted for audio tapes and enumerated documents; certification issues deferred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Batt v. City and County of San Francisco, 184 Cal.App.4th 172 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (possession includes actual and constructive control)
- Times Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 1325 (Cal. 1991) (independent review of Public Records Act orders; substantial evidence standard)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 6 Cal.4th 1112 (Cal. 1993) (principles of statutory interpretation and CEQA purpose)
- Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376 (Cal. 1988) (CEQA accountability and statutory interpretation context)
- Bernardi v. County of Monterey, 167 Cal.App.4th 1379 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (attorney fees and public records—consultant documents under PRA)