BILL ANALYSIS
AB 499
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2009
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Kevin De Leon, Chair
AB 499 (Hill) - As Introduced: February 24, 2009
Policy Committee: Natural
ResourcesVote:6-3
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
Yes Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
lead agency to identify the recipient of the agency's approval
in its notice of determination or exemption and designates that
recipient 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, and serve, in 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,
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
Negligible costs.
COMMENTS
AB 499
Page 2
1)Rationale . 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.
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. The author contends that this
over-naming burdens not only petitioners, but also those who
have been named as real parties in interest by the petitioners
out of caution. The author intends this bill to remedy this
situation by (1) requiring the lead agency to name the
recipients of the lead agency's notice of CEQA determination
or exemption and (2) to specifying that the recipient of
project approval identified by the lead agency is the real
party in interest that a petitioner or plaintiff must name,
and serve, in its petition or complaint.
2)Background . 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 the
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.
AB 499
Page 3
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 be 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."
3)Related Legislation.
a) SB 68 (Kuehl, 2008), similar to this bill in content,
passed the Assembly 46-32 but was later vetoed.
b) 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.
c) SB 1393 (Kuehl) Chapter 1121, Statutes of 2002, revised
CEQA in several ways, 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 is not
grounds for dismissal.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081