BILL ANALYSIS
AB 499
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Nancy Skinner, Chair
AB 499 (Hill) - As Introduced: February 24, 2009
SUBJECT : California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
SUMMARY : Revises CEQA judicial review procedures to clarify
that only the recipients of a project approval identified by the
lead agency are the real parties in interest that must be named
by the plaintiff in an appeal of the lead agency's decision.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires lead agencies with the principal responsibility for
carrying out or approving a proposed project to prepare a
negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or
environmental impact report for this action, unless the
project is exempt from CEQA.
2)Requires a state agency to file a notice of its CEQA decision
with the Office of Planning and Research and requires a local
agency to file a notice of its decision with the appropriate
county clerk(s).
3)Provides appeal procedures to challenge lead agency decisions,
including requiring the petitioner or plaintiff to name, and
serve, a real party in interest; provides that failure to name
potential parties, other than specified real parties in
interest, is not grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
THIS BILL :
1)Requires the lead agency to identify the recipient of the
agency's approval in its notice of determination or exemption.
2)Provides that the recipient of project approval identified by
the lead agency is the real party in interest that a
petitioner or plaintiff must name in, and serve, its petition
or complaint.
3)Provides that the petition or complaint is subject to
dismissal if the petitioner or plaintiff fails to serve any
recipient of approval identified by the lead agency.
AB 499
Page 2
4)Provides that the bill's revisions apply prospectively, i.e.,
they do not apply to CEQA lawsuits pending, or to public
agency decisions for which a notice was filed, on or before
December 31, 2009.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
A "real party in interest" is a person affected by litigation
other than the plaintiff or the defendant. Equitable
principles, reflected in the "indispensable party rule," seek to
assure that a person who will actually be affected by litigation
is adequately notified so he or she can participate in the
litigation. CEQA's judicial review procedures specify which
persons are indispensable parties and must be named and served
in litigation.
Under current law as recently declared by the Court of Appeal in
County of Imperial v. Superior Court (2007) 152 Cal. App. 4th
13, any person who years after project approval claims to be a
recipient of approval can be considered an "indispensable party"
and therefore required to be named in a CEQA lawsuit, which must
brought within 30 days of project approval; failure to name the
party within that 30-day period requires categorical dismissal
of the lawsuit. Such dismissal is required, the Court held in
interpreting existing Section 21167.6.5 of the Public Resources
Code, even though the party not named had asserted in both the
administrative proceeding and in court that it did not need the
approval in question and did not claim to be "indispensable."
To prevent important cases from being dismissed, petitioners in
CEQA lawsuits are forced to over-name and serve parties who
might or might not be considered indispensable to ensure they
have not missed anyone. This is extremely burdensome not only to
the petitioners, but also to those who have been named as real
parties in interest by the petitioners simply out of an
abundance of caution in light of the result in the County of
Imperial case.
This bill intends to resolve the situation of CEQA appellants
either over-naming and over-serving parties, or facing the risk
their appeal may be dismissed for technical errors. First, the
bill requires lead agencies to name the recipients of approval.
AB 499
Page 3
Then, the bill specifies that only those parties actually
identified by the lead agency as a recipient of that approval
must be named and served. Other parties may intervene on their
own initiative. The bill appears to improve the efficiency of
CEQA judicial review by addressing a burdensome procedural
complication without affecting the statute's intent regarding
notice and participation in CEQA litigation.
A similar bill, SB 68 (Kuehl), was approved by this Committee in
2008, but was later vetoed by the Governor, who objected to
making lead agencies responsible for determining who the "real
parties in interest" are. AB 499 is intended to address the
ambiguity the Governor objected to by clearly indicating that
lead agencies simply must name the recipients of their approval,
who petitioners must then name as real parties in interest.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance
California League of Conservation Voters
California Native Plant Society
California State Parks Foundation
Clean Water Action
Environmental Defense Fund
Imperial County Board of Supervisors
Natural Resources Defense Council
Planning and Conservation League
Sierra Club California
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092