Tomlinson v. Cnty. of Alameda

• Decision Date: 14 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. S188161.,S188161.
• Citation: 54 Cal.4th 281,12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6512,142 Cal.Rptr.3d 539,2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7882,278 P.3d 803
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: Fred TOMLINSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al., Defendants and Respondents; Y.T. Wong et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

54 Cal.4th 281
278 P.3d 803
142 Cal.Rptr.3d 539
12 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6512
2012 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7882

Fred TOMLINSON et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA et al., Defendants and Respondents;
Y.T. Wong et al., Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

No. S188161.

Supreme Court of California

June 14, 2012.

[142 Cal.Rptr.3d 540]Remy, Thomas, Moose & Manley, Sacramento, and Sabrina V. Teller for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Office of Jewell Hargleroad and Jewell J. Hargleroad, Oakland, for the League of Women Votes of the Eden Area and Fairview Community Club as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Law Offices of Stephan C. Volker, Oakland, Stephan C. Volker, Joshua A.H. Harris and Shannon L. Chaney for North Coast Rivers Alliance, Desert Protection Society, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance and Klamath Forest Alliance as Amici Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Richard E. Winnie, County Counsel, Brian E. Washington, Assistant County Counsel, and Manuel F. Martinez, Associate County Counsel, for Defendants and Respondents.

Abdalah Law Offices, Cupertino, Richard K. Abdalah and [142 Cal.Rptr.3d 541]Miriam H. Wen–Lebron for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Cox, Castle & Nicholson, San Francisco, Michael H. Zischke, Melanie Sengupta and Andrew B. Sabey for League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties as Amici Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, Santa Barbara, and Beth Collins–Burgard for California Building Industry Association as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

KENNARD, J.

[278 P.3d 804]

[54 Cal.4th 285]In this case, a developer applied to a county planning department for approval to build a housing subdivision. The department and the developer gave written notice to various agencies, to neighbors, and to interested parties. The notice described the proposed project, mentioned the department's determination that the project was categorically exempt from environmental law requirements, and solicited comments. After holding public hearings, the county determined that the proposed project was categorically exempt from compliance with environmental law requirements, and approved it.

The county's approval was then challenged in court. At issue here is a statutory provision stating that a public agency's approval of a proposed project can be challenged in court only on grounds that were “presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period

[278 P.3d 805]

... or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a).) Does this exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies provision apply to a public agency's decision that a project is categorically exempt from environmental law requirements? We hold that it does.

I

The California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) ¹ (CEQA) and the regulations implementing it ( Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15000 et seq.) embody California's strong public policy of protecting the environment. “The basic purposes of CEQA are to: [¶] (1) Inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant [54 Cal.4th 286]environmental effects of proposed activities. [¶] (2) Identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. [¶] (3) Prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the governmental agency finds the changes to be feasible. [¶] (4) Disclose to the public the reasons why a governmental agency approved the project in the manner the agency chose if significant environmental effects are involved.” ( Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002.)

To achieve these goals, CEQA and the implementing regulations provide for a three-step process. In the first step, the public agency must determine whether the proposed development is a “project,” that is, “an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” undertaken, supported, or approved by a public agency. (§ 21065.)

[142 Cal.Rptr.3d 542] The second step of the process is required if the proposed activity is a “project.” The public agency must then decide whether it is exempt from compliance with CEQA under either a statutory exemption (§ 21080) or a categorical exemption set forth in the regulations (§ 21084, subd. (a); Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300). A categorically exempt project is not subject to CEQA, and no further environmental review is required. ( Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 380, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 160 P.3d 116;San Lorenzo Valley Community Advocates for Responsible Education v. San Lorenzo Valley Unified School Dist. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 1356, 1373, 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 128.) If the project is not exempt, the agency must determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the agency decides the project will not have such an effect, it must “adopt a negative declaration to that effect.” (§ 21080, subd. (c); see Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15070; Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com., supra, at pp. 380–381, 60 Cal.Rptr.3d 247, 160 P.3d 116.) Otherwise, the agency must proceed to the third step, which entails preparation of an environmental impact report before approval of the project. (§§ 21100, subd. (a), 21151, subd. (a).)

II

In 2006, real parties in interest Y.T. Wong and SMI Construction, Inc. (hereafter collectively Wong), submitted an application to the Alameda [54 Cal.4th 287]County Planning Department ² to develop a single-family housing subdivision in the Fairview area, an unincorporated part of the county. The application proposed to merge two parcels of land into one parcel of 1.89 acres, to subdivide the merged parcel into 11 lots, and to develop the lots with single-family homes. The proposed subdivision was subject to two long-term development plans: the General Plan for the Central Metropolitan, Eden, and Washington Planning Units of Alameda County, and the Fairview Area Specific Plan. In April 2007, in response to concerns raised by various public agencies, Wong submitted a revised application.

[278 P.3d 806]

On May 14, 2007, the planning department gave written notice of the proposed housing development to a number of agencies, neighbors, and interested parties. The notice described the proposed project and solicited comments. The notice also stated that the project was exempt from CEQA compliance “based on the site's existing conditions (developed as a low-density residential site with gently sloping land and minimal habitat value), and conformance to the existing zoning for the site (R–1, Fairview Area Specific Plan).”

On June 22, 2007, Wong mailed to neighbors of the proposed housing subdivision a notice of a public hearing set for July 2 to address a preliminary plan review by the planning commission. Both the notice and the commission's preliminary plan review stated that the proposed...