In Stop Syar Expansion v. County of Napa (2021) 2021 WL 1596347, the First District Court of Appeal, in a partially-published opinion, held administrative exhaustion for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), is only satisfied where the issue is raised with a level of specificity required by, and in compliance with procedural requirements of, local law.
Background
In 2015, the Napa County Planning Commission certified an Environmental Impact Report pursuant to CEQA (“EIR”) and approved a project to expand an aggregate operation in Napa County (“Project”). A community group, Stop Syar Expansion (“SSE”), appealed the Planning Commission’s actions to the Napa County Board of Supervisors (“Board”). After hearing the appeal, the Board rejected SSE’s contentions, certified the EIR, and approved the Project with modifications.
SSE petitioned for a writ of mandate alleging the EIR was deficient in sixteen distinct ways. The trial court denied the petition as to each alleged deficiency – holding SSE failed to exhaust on some issues and reaching the merits as to others. SSE timely appealed.
Court of Appeal Holding
The Court of Appeal addressed five alleged EIR deficiencies and affirmed as to each. The published portion of the Court’s holding was limited to a court’s proper administrative exhaustion analysis and the Project’s general plan consistency. As to the latter, SSE alleged that allowing mining on land designated by the county’s 2008 general plan for agriculture and open space was inconsistent with the general plan. The Court held that the issue was not properly raised under this CEQA petition and, in any event, “determining whether a project is consistent with general plan policies is left to the lead agency; it is emphatically not the role of the courts to micromanage such decisions.” As such, the Court held that the Board had sufficiently discussed the matter during the Project review process and determined that the Project was consistent.
The Court further held that a court’s proper analysis of administrative exhaustion is dependent on the procedures applicable to the public agency in question. Citing Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer, (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 577, the Court held exhaustion is a “jurisdictional prerequisite” and not a matter of judicial discretion; “if a court allows a suit to go forward prior to a final administrative determination, it will be interfering with the subject matter of another tribunal.”
The Court held that the applicable procedures required it to analyze exhaustion at both the Planning Commission and Board levels. Public Resources Code section 21177 required SSE, or another party, to raise the specific issues that were stated in its Petition both to the Planning Commission and the Board, in order for it to have properly exhausted its administrative remedies. The County ordinance had both procedural and content requirements so, to comply, SSE was required “to show it timely filed a notice of intent to appeal and timely submitted an appeal packet which specifically identified the grounds it raise[d] in this court action.”
The Court distinguished its holding from the holding in Citizens for Open Government v. City of Lodi (2006) 144 Cal.App.4th 865. In Citizens, the “city did not require a specification of issues, nor did it require each objector to file its own appeal.” Further, the city actually gave notice that any person could present their general “views or comments” at the appeal hearing and advised that any challenge in court “may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised” at the hearing. Thus, the applicable procedures, in law and in the record, in Citizens were distinct from the Napa County ordinance and the holdings are not inconsistent.
Finally, the Court of Appeal held that a petitioner “has the burden of proof to show exhaustion occurred…and in this regard, a list of string-cites to the administrative record without explanation as to how each supports the assertions the public agency was ‘fairly appraised’ of the asserted noncompliance with CEQA, is not sufficient.” In short, a petitioner is required to show, with specificity, how it met exhaustion requirements.
The Court of Appeal affirmed.
Take-Away
A determination of whether a petitioner properly exhausted its administrative remedies is not limited to CEQA procedures but also dependent on the procedures applicable to the public agency in question. Lead agencies should consider requiring more specificity in their procedures so that they can more effectively respond to CEQA challenges.
Questions
If you have any questions regarding this Legal Alert, please contact the following attorneys from our office, or the attorney with whom you typically consult.
Mona Ebrahimi
mebrahimi@kmtg.com | 916.321.4597
Olivia Clark
oclark@kmtg.com | 916.321.4290