Tarbet v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. CA1/1
236 Cal. App. 4th 348
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Gregory Tarbet bought one lot from a 3-lot subdivision on Banyan Street in Hayward; a County-approved parcel map (Parcel Map 8743) required water service "in accordance with the requirements" of East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) and a "will serve" letter from EBMUD.
- At purchase the lot lacked water service. Tarbet applied to EBMUD, which provided an estimate conditioned on compliance with its regulations and required a 260-foot main extension including a 15-foot main on Tarbet’s property and a 15-foot easement to install/maintain pipe and a blowoff assembly.
- Tarbet rejected the easement requirement and proposed an alternate meter location; EBMUD refused because the proposed layout would not allow meter access at a right angle and conflicted with its engineering standards.
- Tarbet petitioned for writ of mandate (and asserted related claims) to force EBMUD to provide service consistent with the recorded parcel map without imposing the easement; trial court denied the writ and later sustained EBMUD’s demurrer to the remaining claims.
- On appeal Tarbet argued (1) the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and County ordinances vested rights preventing EBMUD from acquiring post‑approval easements, (2) EBMUD violated its own regs and abused discretion, and (3) the County’s approval limited EBMUD’s authority. The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EBMUD was bound by SMA vesting so it could not seek easements after parcel map approval | Tarbet: County approval vested rights so EBMUD could not impose new easements or conditions not on the recorded map | EBMUD: Not a "local agency" under SMA vesting scheme; SMA does not require water agencies to obtain customer easements during map review; County required only a "will serve" letter | Held: SMA vesting applies to local agencies; EBMUD is not a local agency for these vesting rules and had no duty to obtain easement at map approval; Tarbet’s vesting theory fails |
| Whether County ordinances or map conditions barred EBMUD from seeking an easement | Tarbet: County code and map conditions required utilities/easements be addressed before approval | EBMUD: County ordinances govern the map approval process but do not restrict EBMUD’s conduct; many ordinance arguments were not preserved below | Held: County ordinances and the map’s conditions did not preclude EBMUD from later seeking easements; many arguments were waived; trial court correctly rejected this claim |
| Whether EBMUD abused discretion or violated its own regulations by requiring easement and denying Tarbet’s meter placement | Tarbet: EBMUD inconsistently applied its waiver practice and should have granted an exception | EBMUD: Regulations designate "principal frontage," require main extensions and easements where necessary, and allow EBMUD to determine suitability and waivers; safety and operational reasons justified its decision | Held: EBMUD acted within its regulations and engineering standards; denial of waiver was not arbitrary or capricious |
| Whether exclusion of Tarbet’s extrinsic evidence was reversible error | Tarbet: Court erred in excluding evidence of other waivers and documents outside the administrative record | EBMUD: Evidence was irrelevant to regulatory discretion and many items were properly objected to; any error was not prejudicial | Held: Even if some exclusionary rulings erred, Tarbet failed to show prejudice; evidentiary rulings were not reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Evans v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 39 Cal.3d 398 (statutory construction and review of legal questions)
- Golden State Homebuilding Assoc. v. City of Modesto, 26 Cal.App.4th 601 (role of tentative maps and subdivision review)
- Gardner v. County of Sonoma, 29 Cal.4th 990 (local agency review and map approval context)
- Kaufman & Broad Central Valley, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 25 Cal.App.4th 1577 (vesting tentative map notice principles)
- Bright Dev. v. City of Tracy, 20 Cal.App.4th 783 (limits on imposing new written requirements after vesting)
- Contra Costa Water Dist. v. Bar-C Props., 5 Cal.App.4th 652 (distinguishing authority and scope of utility actions)
- Cherry Valley Pass Acres & Neighbors v. City of Beaumont, 190 Cal.App.4th 316 (SMA §66473.7 public water system verification requirement)