close of the public hearing in California

2025“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199 (Bakersfield); North Coast, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 624; see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third District (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 .) No action or proceeding alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA may be brought “unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance . . . were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period .

2020ISSUES INVOLVING EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRIVE REMEDIES "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action." (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1199 .) " 'That requirement is satisfied if "the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination." ' " (City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 465, 474 .) " ' "To advanc

2021Heritage primarily relies on section 21177 19 and Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523 , 535 19 Section 21177 states: “(a) An action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination. “(b) A person shall not maintain an action or proceeding unless that person objecte

2009Therefore, Tracy First failed to exhaust its administrative remedies with respect to this specific argument and cannot raise it now. 5 (See Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 535 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.3d 1 ] [requiring specific objection to preserve issue for judicial review].) On the other hand, both Tracy First and Jim Watt raised the issue of a reduced-size alternative in written comments to the city council, which were *928 submitted before the close of the public hearing on the EIR.

2006(Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118-1119 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] (Galante Vineyards).) Subdivision (b) of section 21177 then provides: “No person shall maintain an action or proceeding unless that person objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” That is, the availability of judicial review is restricted to parties who have objected to the agency’s ap

2006(Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist. (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1118-1119 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 ] (Galante Vineyards).) Subdivision (b) of section 21177 then provides: “No person shall maintain an action or proceeding unless that person objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” That is, the availability of judicial review is restricted to parties who have objected to the agency’s ap

2010That requirement is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” ’ (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 791-792 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ], fn. & italics omitted.) [f] ‘The purpose of the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial r

2010That requirement is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” ’ (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 791-792 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ], fn. & italics omitted.) [f] ‘The purpose of the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial r

2010Properly understood, exhaustion under section 21177 is a statutory prerequisite for asserting a ground of CEQA noncompliance. ( Porterville Citizens For Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 910 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ] ( Porterville ).) It is designed to give agencies "the opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subject to judicial review." ( Ibid., citing Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1198 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 855 ].) To that end, the exact

2010Properly understood, exhaustion under section 21177 is a statutory prerequisite for asserting a ground of CEQA noncompliance. ( Porterville Citizens For Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 910 [ 69 Cal.Rptr.3d 105 ] ( Porterville ).) It is designed to give agencies "the opportunity to receive and respond to articulated factual issues and legal theories before its actions are subject to judicial review." ( Ibid., citing Coalition for Student Action v. City of Fullerton (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1194, 1198 [ 200 Cal.Rptr. 855 ].) To that end, the exact

2022Resources Code, §] 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.”]; see Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 291 [“the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement set forth in subdivision (a) of [Pub.

2022Resources Code, §] 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.”]; see Tomlinson v. County of Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 291 [“the exhaustion-of-administrative-remedies requirement set forth in subdivision (a) of [Pub.

2025(Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development v. City of San Diego (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 515, 527 .) Rather, “ ‘[t]he “exact issue” must have been presented to the administrative agency.’ ” (Sierra Club v. City of Orange (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 523, 535 (City of Orange).) “Requiring anything less ‘would enable litigants to narrow, obscure, or even omit their arguments before the final administrative authority because they could possibly obtain a more favorable decision from a trial court.’ ” (North Coast, at p. 623.) “The petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that the is

2016(Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 885, 909 .) City first asserted Coalition did not exhaust administrative remedies in its answer to Coalition’s writ petition below.

2022It provides that no action or proceeding may be brought alleging non- compliance with CEQA unless (1) the alleged grounds for noncompliance “were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination” and (2) the person bringing the action “objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project bef

2021(Defend Our Waterfront v. State Lands Commission (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 570, 580 (Defend Our Waterfront).) Exhaustion of administrative remedies is “a jurisdictional prerequisite” to a CEQA lawsuit, “not a matter of judicial discretion.” (Tahoe Vista Concerned Citizens v. County of Placer (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 577, 589 (Tahoe Vista).) The statutory exhaustion requirement mandates that each allegation of noncompliance with CEQA, including disagreement with a determination of categorical exemption, must be “presented to the public agency” orally or in writing . . . prior to the close of the publ

2018That requirement is satisfied if 'the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.' " ( State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674 , 791-792, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 , fn. & italics omitted.) " 'The rationale for exhaustion is that the agency " 'is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation is instituted.

2018That requirement is satisfied if 'the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.' " ( State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674 , 791-792, 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 , fn. & italics omitted.) " 'The rationale for exhaustion is that the agency " 'is entitled to learn the contentions of interested parties before litigation is instituted.

2026Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a CEQA action, as we have said. (§ 21177; see also Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1104-1105.)7 But “the failure to exhaust does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1216 [“cases that 7 Section 21177, subdivision (a) provides: “An action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division we

2026Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a CEQA action, as we have said. (§ 21177; see also Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1104-1105.)7 But “the failure to exhaust does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1216 [“cases that 7 Section 21177, subdivision (a) provides: “An action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division we

2023As a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action, the rule of exhaustion serves “ ‘to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial review.’ ” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 616 (California Native Plant).) The requirement “ ‘is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance o

2023As a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action, the rule of exhaustion serves “ ‘to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial review.’ ” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 616 (California Native Plant).) The requirement “ ‘is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance o

2022It provides that no action or proceeding may be brought alleging non- compliance with CEQA unless (1) the alleged grounds for noncompliance “were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination” and (2) the person bringing the action “objected to the approval of the project orally or in writing during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project bef

2021Where an appeal process is available and a party fails to exhaust its administrative remedies, it may not bring a judicial 12 Section 21177 provides that an action or proceeding alleging an agency failed to comply with CEQA shall not be brought unless (1) the alleged grounds for noncompliance “were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination” and (2) the person bringing the action “objected to the approval of the p

2010That requirement is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” ’ (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 791-792 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ], fn. & italics omitted.) [f] ‘The purpose of the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial r

2010That requirement is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented ... by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” ’ (State Water Resources Control Bd. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 791-792 [ 39 Cal.Rptr.3d 189 ], fn. & italics omitted.) [f] ‘The purpose of the rule of exhaustion of administrative remedies is to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial r

2021(Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 251 [“To satisfy the exhaustion doctrine, the objections must ‘fairly apprise[]’ the agency of the purported defect in the EIR.”].) 4 Section 21177 provides in pertinent part: “(a) An action or proceeding shall not be brought . . . unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the n

2021(Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 251 [“To satisfy the exhaustion doctrine, the objections must ‘fairly apprise[]’ the agency of the purported defect in the EIR.”].) 4 Section 21177 provides in pertinent part: “(a) An action or proceeding shall not be brought . . . unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or before the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the n

2016“Thus, a party can litigate issues that were timely raised by others, but only if that party objected to the project approval on any ground during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project.” (Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. City of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1252, 1263 [100 Cal.R.ptr.2d 301].) Here, appellants concede that Koslca objected to the Project at the hearing.

2004(See, e.g., Galante, supra, 60 Cal.App.4th at p. 1121 .) However, section 21177 specifically refers to close of the public hearing on project approval prior to issuance of the notice of determination, not certification of the EIR. *1200 (§ 21177, subds. (a) & (b).) The correct formulation is expressed in Hillside, supra, 83 Cal.App.4th at page 1263 : “[A] party can litigate issues that were timely raised by others, but only if that party objected to the project approval on any ground during the public comment period or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project.” We believe that t

2023As a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action, the rule of exhaustion serves “ ‘to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial review.’ ” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 616 (California Native Plant).) The requirement “ ‘is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance o

2023As a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action, the rule of exhaustion serves “ ‘to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial review.’ ” (California Native Plant Society v. City of Rancho Cordova (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 603, 616 (California Native Plant).) The requirement “ ‘is satisfied if “the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance o

2020A. Administrative Exhaustion "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action." (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199 .) " 'That requirement is satisfied if "the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination." ' " (City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 465, 474 .

2020ISSUES INVOLVING EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRIVE REMEDIES "Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action." (Bakersfield Citizens, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 1199 .) " 'That requirement is satisfied if "the alleged grounds for noncompliance with [CEQA] were presented . . . by any person during the public comment period provided by [CEQA] or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination." ' " (City of Long Beach v. City of Los Angeles (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 465, 474 .) " ' "To advanc

2025(See S.D. v. Faulkner (1989) 705 F.Supp. 1361, 1363 , cited in Graham, at p. 577.) The other case is Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670 (Garrison), in which the Second District discussed section 21177, subdivision (b) of the Public Resources Code, which requires a person to object to the approval of a project orally or in writing “during the public comment period” or before “the close of the public hearing on the project” before he or she may pursue an action for violation of CEQA.

1997(Garrison v. Board of Directors (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1670, 1677 [ 43 Cal.Rptr.2d 214 ].) The obvious problem in section 21177 is the use of the disjunctive in subdivisions (a) and (b); i.e., objections must be raised by persons “during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” In discussing the statute in its intended decision the trial court stated: “The statute should be interpreted to permit an action to be brought by any person who has objected up to or at the public h

2025“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199 (Bakersfield); North Coast, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 624; see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third District (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 .) No action or proceeding alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA may be brought “unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance . . . were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period .

2025“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199 (Bakersfield); North Coast, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 624; see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third District (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 .) No action or proceeding alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA may be brought “unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance . . . were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period .

2022(Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1136 .) And we employ a de novo standard of review when determining whether the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine applies.

2006Otherwise, the purpose of the exhaustion doctrine would not be served, since the courts would be called upon to step outside their limited role of reviewing the decisionmaking process of the administrative agency . . . .” (Evans v. City of San Jose (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1123, 1140 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.3d 675 ]) Accordingly, we conclude that the Preservation Group may not advance the piecemealing argument in this proceeding because the issue was not fairly presented to the City. *283 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed.

2015“A party cannot maintain an action alleging that the EIR does not comply with the environmental quality division of the Public Resources Code ‘unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.’ ” (Tracy First, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 930 , citing Pub.

2011Resources Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Tracy First v. City of Tracy (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th 912, 926 [ 99 Cal.Rptr.3d 621 ].) “ 1 “[T]he objections must be sufficiently specific so that the agency has the opportunity to evaluate and respond to them.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Tracy First, at p. 926.) This requirement serves “to provide an administrative agency with the opportunity to decide matters in its area of expertise prior to judicial review. [Citation.]” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 384 [ 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 579 ].) Real

2013(Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 501 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 981 P.2d 543 ].) In the context of CEQA actions, Public Resources Code section 21177 provides that “[a]n action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” (Pub.

2013(Sierra Club v. San Joaquin Local Agency Formation Com. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 489, 501 [ 87 Cal.Rptr.2d 702 , 981 P.2d 543 ].) In the context of CEQA actions, Public Resources Code section 21177 provides that “[a]n action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period provided by this division or prior to the close of the public hearing on the project before the issuance of the notice of determination.” (Pub.

2026Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintaining a CEQA action, as we have said. (§ 21177; see also Save the Hill Group v. City of Livermore, supra, 76 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1104-1105.)7 But “the failure to exhaust does not deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction.” (Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1216 [“cases that 7 Section 21177, subdivision (a) provides: “An action or proceeding shall not be brought pursuant to Section 21167 unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance with this division we

2025“Exhaustion of administrative remedies is a jurisdictional prerequisite to maintenance of a CEQA action.” (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199 (Bakersfield); North Coast, supra, 216 Cal.App.4th at p. 624; see also Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, Third District (1941) 17 Cal.2d 280, 293 .) No action or proceeding alleging that an EIR does not comply with CEQA may be brought “unless the alleged grounds for noncompliance . . . were presented to the public agency orally or in writing by any person during the public comment period .