BILL ANALYSIS
AB 499
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 21, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
Mike Feuer, Chair
AB 499 (Hill) - As Amended: February 24, 2009
SUBJECT : CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA): REAL
PARTIES IN INTEREST
KEY ISSUE : SHOULD THE "REAL PARTY IN INTEREST" NAMED IN A CEQA
LAWSUIT BE DEFINED AS THOSE PARTIES ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED IN THE
LEAD AGENCY'S CEQA APPROVAL?
FISCAL EFFECT : As currently in print this bill is keyed fiscal.
SYNOPSIS
This non-controversial bill would revise 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. Under the bill, a plaintiff is required to name these
real parties in interest when appealing the lead agency's
decision. This requirement seeks to resolve clearly who must be
named as a real party in interest at the commencement of a CEQA
case.
SUMMARY : Requires that a petitioner or plaintiff name a
recipient of an approval as a "real party in interest."
Specifically, 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 within the statute of limitations
period.
4)Provides that the bill's revisions apply prospectively only,
AB 499
Page 2
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.
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. (Public Resources Code section
21000 et seq.)
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). (Public Resources Code section 21108 and
21152.)
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. (Public
Resources Code section 21167.6.5.)
COMMENTS : This bill requires lead agencies to list "recipients
of approval" for a particular project in their notice of
determination or exemption. Additionally, this measure
clarifies the parties that must be "indispensable parties" in a
CEQA lawsuit. As the sponsor of this bill, the Planning and
Conservation League, explains:
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. [See case description below.]
A "real party in interest" is a person affected by litigation
other than the plaintiff or the defendant. The "indispensable
AB 499
Page 3
party rule" requires adequate notification to a person actually
affected by litigation. CEQA's judicial review procedures
specify which persons are indispensable parties and must be
named and served in litigation.
BACKDROP : Adopted in 1970 and incorporated in the Public
Resources Code 21000-21177, the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) applies to projects undertaken, funded or
requiring an issuance of a permit by a public agency. CEQA
requires a lead agency, the principal public agency ensuring
CEQA compliance, to prepare an analysis of a project that may
have a significant effect on the environment. The analysis of a
project usually takes the form of an Environmental Impact
Report, Environmental Impact Statement, Negative Declaration, or
Environmental Assessment.
CEQA also requires the lead agency to file a notice of approval
or a notice of determination containing specified information
with the Office of Planning Research or the county clerk of each
county in which the project is located. CEQA provides the
procedure by which a party may file a lawsuit against the
continuance of a project thought to harm environment. In order
to file a lawsuit, however, the party must name all the
individuals involved in the project for the suit to withstand
dismissal.
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. However,
a CEQA lawsuit must brought within 30 days of project approval,
and failure to name all indispensable parties within that 30-day
period results in categorical dismissal of the lawsuit. The
court upheld the dismissal of this lawsuit 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."
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : 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. The bill requires lead agencies to name the
recipients of approval. It also specifies that only those
parties actually identified by the lead agency as a recipient of
AB 499
Page 4
that approval must be named and served. Other parties may
intervene on their own initiative. As the Planning and
Conservation League states:
This clarity is especially important in CEQA cases since
they have extremely short statutes of limitation. Cases
must be filed, with all recipients of approval included in
the filing, within 30 days of project approval. That is
often not enough time for the lead agency to hand over the
entire Administrative Record in the case, which at least
contains information to suggest which entities might need
to be included in the lawsuit.
According to its supporters, the bill will thus 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. The bill
has no known opposition.
Prior/Pending Related Legislation. A similar bill, SB 68
(Kuehl), 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.
SB 1393 (Kuehl) Chapter 1121, Statutes of 2002, made various
revisions to CEQA, including requirements for naming a real
party in interest, serving the petition or complaint, and
providing certain agencies with notice of the action or
proceeding. This provision also provides that failure to name
potential parties, other than those specified ( i.e. , recipient
of approval, certain agencies) is not grounds for dismissal.
AB 2814 (Simitian) Chapter 522, Statutes of 2004, provided that
failure to name potential parties, other than the recipient of
an approval, is not grounds for dismissal.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO
AB 499
Page 5
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 : Drew Liebert and Edward Ahn / JUD. /
(916) 319-2334