Tomlinson v. County of Alameda
54 Cal. 4th 281
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Dealings involved a private developer seeking county approval to merge 2 parcels into 1.89 acres, subdivide into 11 lots, and build single-family homes in unincorporated Alameda County.
- Notice to agencies, neighbors, and interested parties claimed CEQA exemption based on existing conditions and zoning, and solicited comments.
- Public hearings were conducted; the county approved the project and its exemption from CEQA.
- Petitioners challenged the exemption, arguing it did not meet the categorical in-fill exemption’s city-limits requirement, and raised exhaustion of administrative remedies under Pub. Resources Code §21177.
- The Court of Appeal held exhaustion did not apply to CEQA exemption determinations; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflict.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that §21177(a) exhaustion applies to a public agency’s categorically exempt CEQA decision if notice and public hearings were provided, and remanded for further proceedings on remaining contentions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §21177(a) exhaustion apply to a categorically exempt CEQA decision? | Wong argued exhaustion does not apply to exemption determinations. | Alameda contended exhaustion is inapplicable for exemptions. | Yes, exhaustion applies. |
| Must public comment or hearing precede the exemption decision for exhaustion to apply? | Wong contends no pre-determination comment required. | County argues public comment/hearing is unnecessary for exemptions. | Exhaustion requires pre-decision public comment or hearing. |
| Does absence of a notice of determination eliminate the exhaustion requirement? | Lack of notice means no exhaustion obligation. | Exemption decision still subject to exhaustion if hearings occurred. | No; exhaustion applies if there were public hearings allowing objections. |
| Are Azusa/Hines distinctions reconciled regarding exhaustion for categorically exempt decisions? | Azusa limited applicability of exhaustion where no hearings occurred. | Hines supports applying exhaustion when hearings occurred before exemption. | Exhaustion applies where public hearings occurred prior to exemption finding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, 52 Cal.App.4th 1165 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (exemption determinations may affect exhaustion analysis)
- Hines v. California Coastal Com., 186 Cal.App.4th 830 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (exhaustion applies where hearings precede exemption determinations)
- Stockton Citizens for Sensible Planning v. City of Stockton, 48 Cal.4th 481 (Cal. 2010) (exhaustion doctrine as jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control Dist. v. California Public Employment Relations Bd., 35 Cal.4th 1072 (Cal. 2005) (exhaustion doctrine facilitates administrative record development)
- Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., 41 Cal.4th 372 (Cal. 2007) (CEQA exemptions and related review principles)
- San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist., 139 Cal.App.4th 1356 (Cal. App. 2006) (CEQA regulatory exemptions and review procedures)