Members of the Sacramento City Council said they anticipated a rough meeting this week when they considered a controversial superstore ordinance. Still, no one was prepared for what they encountered when they walked into their chambers that evening.

Wal-Mart, leading the opposition against the proposal, had a court reporter stationed next to the dais to record every word. Each council member got a letter from the corporation's attorney, warning that the ordinance specifically targets Wal-Mart and "violates numerous federal, state and local laws, and is discriminatory and unfair."

Councilman Rob Fong, an attorney, said the corporation's message was clear.

"Those two things combined would indicate to me that one of the things coming down the pike is some sort of legal challenge," Fong said. "If that happens, it wouldn't surprise me."

Nevertheless, the council passed the ordinance unanimously, following in the footsteps of several cities across the country that have made it tougher to build superstores in their areas.

In Lodi, the City Council declined to move forward with such a so-called "big-box" ordinance to limit the size of retailers, clearing the way for a failed citizens' initiative.

Other municipalities are banning the massive retail establishments outright, battling citizens groups to bring the stores in or floating the issue through ballot initiatives.

In some cases, litigation has followed.

Although these ordinances might not name a particular retailer -- the Sacramento statute does not -- they often are prompted by an attempt to put a Wal-Mart Supercenter in the community.

A Supercenter combines general merchandise with deeply discounted groceries, is open 24 hours a day, and is typically 200,000 square feet.

Lodi's proposed store is 226,868 square feet to be built at the southwest corner of Lower Sacramento Road and Kettleman Lane. The final approval came Wednesday after the City Council compromised with the developer to fill the city's current Wal-Mart building or demolish it before the Supercenter is built.

In the Sacramento case, Wal-Mart spokesman Kevin Loscotoff said the ordinance harms consumer choice and is anti-competitive.

Asked if the company was considering legal action, Loscotoff said, "We're evaluating our options. The important thing is we're committed to serving our customers in Sacramento."

Wal-Mart is in negotiations to place a store in Sacramento's Downtown Plaza.

A report on wages, merchant impact

The Sacramento ordinance requires an economic analysis of proposed superstores to include the impact on existing merchants, a wage survey and tax revenue projections. (A report addressing the same issues was prepared in Lodi.)

Superstores are defined in the ordinance as larger than 90,000 square feet of space and using more than 20 percent of retail space for nontaxable items such as groceries. Membership or bulk stores are exempt.

Peter Kanelos, a Wal-Mart spokesman who handles communications for the Central Valley and Southern California, said the company decides how to react to such ordinances on a case-by-case basis.

It may choose to sue or ask voters to overturn the law through a referendum.

"We have to take the best action to meet the needs of our customers, our shareholders and our associates," Kanelos said.

The company has been successful overturning ordinances in Calexico and Contra Costa County, he said.

In Turlock, officials decided to go to court.

When grocers there learned a few years ago that Wal-Mart was looking to locate in town, they turned to city officials for help.

City Attorney Dick Burton said that when a Wal-Mart Supercenter moves into a community, it takes about 40 percent of the grocery business.

"All our small shopping centers are anchored by grocery stores," Burton said. "If they go out of business and go dark, we'll have urban blight."

The Turlock City Council didn't wait for the chain to file a formal application. In January 2004, it passed an ordinance banning stores that exceed 100,000 square feet and devote at least 5 percent of their retail space to groceries or other nontaxable items.

Within 30 days, Wal-Mart began litigation in both state and federal court claiming discrimination, and charging that Turlock didn't have the authority to adopt such an ordinance, Burton said.

"It's all about intimidation," the Turlock city attorney said. "Suing seems to be Wal-Mart's pattern."

In December, a Stanislaus Superior Court judge upheld the ordinance. Wal-Mart appealed the case to the state 5th District Court of Appeal in Fresno. The federal case is ongoing.

The giant Wal-Mart chain opened its first California Supercenters only last year -- in La Quinta first, then Stockton -- but plans at least 40 more in the next few years. In addition to Lodi, potential sites include Galt, Roseville, Woodland and Yuba City.

Several municipal officials agree that some issues such as Wal-Mart particularly seem to ignite emotions.

The proposed Supercenter approved Wednesday by the Lodi City Council has split the community, said Councilman Larry Hansen.

"We've had controversial issues before, but nothing, nothing like this," said Hansen, who voted for the store.

"Businesses are afraid of Wal-Mart. It generates a lot of concern with unions and grocery stores. When you're No. 1 at anything, people are going to attack you."

Last year, a citizens group successfully gathered enough signatures to put on the November ballot an initiative that would limit retailers to 125,000 square feet without voter approval.

But the measure, written by the Small City Preservation Committee, failed when only 42 percent of voters supported it, versus 58 opposed.

Herum's legal battles

When Bakersfield approved two Supercenter sites within four miles of each other, a citizens group sued the city for underestimating what the group characterized as the urban decay, traffic and air problems that would result.

In that case, the 5th District Court of Appeal recently published a decision that could shape the way California municipalities prepare environmental reports, attorneys said.

"The court ruled that urban decay is an environmental impact as serious as air and water quality," said Steven Herum, the Stockton lawyer representing Bakersfield Citizens for Reasonable Growth.

Herum has threatened to file a similar lawsuit against Lodi. He's challenging the adequacy of an environmental report detailing the Supercenters potential effects on the community.

Lodi First, the group he represents, has 30 days after the city posts a notice that the project has been approved to challenge the decision. That notice was put up last Thursday.

Bakersfield City Attorney Virginia Gennaro said the court ruling sets a precedent in the 5th District, and city attorneys throughout the state should "give it some weight."

Gennaro said she believes the lawsuit was pushed by labor interests.

"We don't think these citizens were from Bakersfield, but whether we can prove that is an open question," she said. "Generally speaking, the community here did not show opposition to approval of the projects."

Wal-Mart officials said they believe that ordinances nationwide are pushed by organized labor. Wal-Marts do not employ union workers.

"Wal-Mart is the target of unions," Loscotoff said. "We certainly see that in Sacramento."

City Councilwoman Sandy Sheedy, who pushed for the Sacramento measure, is a strong labor proponent. However, she said the Sacramento ordinance targets no one company and was crafted to give decision-makers better information.

Michael Cooke, planning manager for the city of Turlock, said he laughs when he hears Wal-Mart point to labor as the reason behind ordinances.

"They always go after the councils as the stooges of unions," Cooke said. "Here, nothing could be further from the truth. This is a Republican, right-wing, conservative council."

News-Sentinel City Editor Jennifer Pearson Bonnett contributed to this report.