Tomlinson

Tomlinson v. County of Alameda

Good Law
116 Cal. Rptr. 3d 579·188 Cal. App. 4th 1406
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 6, 2010A125471California7,852 words

Opinion

Opinion

Richard K. Abdalah and Miriam H. Wen-Lebron for Real Parties in Interest and Respondents.

Appellants Fred and D'Arcy Tomlinson (the Tomlinsons) filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5), challenging the decision of respondent County of Alameda (County) to approve a subdivision development proposed by real parties in interest, Y.T. Wong and SMI Construction, Inc. (Developer). The trial court denied the petition. The Tomlinsons appeal from the trial court's order, contending the County abused its discretion in deeming the proposed subdivision exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) (CEQA), under the categorical exemption for in-fill development (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15332). [1] As we agree that this exemption does not apply, we reverse the trial court's order and remand the matter with instructions to issue a writ of mandate directing the County to set aside its decision.

In December 2006, Developer filed an application with the Alameda County Planning Department (Planning Department) to merge two parcels on Bayview Avenue into one 1.89-acre parcel, subdivide it into…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.