Environment: California Environmental Quality Act: determination: dispute.
Summary
(1) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, which includes a local agency, to prepare, or cause to be prepared by contract, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project, as defined, that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA requires a lead agency to file a notice of approval or a notice of determination containing specified information with the Office of Planning and Research or the county clerk of each county in which the project is located, as appropriate. CEQA provides a procedure by which a party may attack, review, set aside, void, or annul the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency on specified grounds. CEQA requires the party challenging the determination to name, as a real party of interest, a recipient of an approval that is the subject of the challenge and to service the petition or complaint on that real party of interest not later than 20 business days following the service of the petition or complaint on the public agency. This bill would instead require that a petitioner or plaintiff name, as a real party in interest, a recipient of approval, as identified by the public agency in its notice of determination or notice of exemption, that is the subject of an action or proceeding challenging the determination, finding, or decision of a public agency pursuant to CEQA. The bill would authorize the court to dismiss a petition or complaint if a petitioner or plaintiff fails to serve the recipient of approval identified by the public agency within the above service period. The bill would require the court to issue an order providing additional time for, and specifying the manner of, service if the petitioner or plaintiff demonstrates to the court's satisfaction that he or she has made a good faith effort to service the identified recipient of approval within the above service period. The bill would provide that the above requirement would not apply to a proceeding for judicial review filed pursuant to CEQA that is pending on or before December 31, 2009, or to actions or proceedings challenging an act or decision of a public agency for which a notice of decision or notice of exemption was filed on or before December 31, 2009. The bill would require a notice of approval or notice of determination to name the recipient of approval, if any. Because a lead agency would be required to include additional information in the notice of approval or notice of determination, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would also define "recipient of approval" for purposes of CEQA. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Bill status
vetoed
4 of 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2009
Committee Review
Jun 2009
Assembly Passage
May 2009
Senate Passage
Aug 2010
Vetoed
Sep 2010
Introduced Feb 24, 2009
Vetoed Sep 29, 2010
Floor votes · Senate Aug 30, 2010 · Assembly May 28, 2009
How they voted
20–13
Passed · 2 other
Total votes 35
Aug 30, 2010
D
Democratic23
86% Yea
R
Republican12
100% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
27
Key actions
9
Committee
8
Amendments
3
Sep 29, 2010
Vetoed
Vetoed by Governor.
lower
Aug 31, 2010
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To enrollment. (Ayes 49. Noes 28. Page 6904.)
lower
Aug 30, 2010
Senate · Passed
Senate Vote: pass (20-13-2)
senate
Aug 30, 2010
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
lower
Jun 29, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jun 23, 2009
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (June 22).
upper
Jun 18, 2009
Introduced
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on EQ.
upper
Jun 11, 2009
Committee
Referred to Coms. on EQ. and JUD.
upper
May 28, 2009
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (34-25-3)
assembly
Apr 30, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 5.) (April 29).
lower
Apr 21, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on APPR. Re-referred. (Ayes 7. Noes 3.) (April 21).
lower
Apr 14, 2009
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass, and re-refer to Com. on JUD. Re-referred. (Ayes 6. Noes 3.) (April 13).
lower
Mar 16, 2009
Committee
Referred to Coms. on NAT. RES. and JUD.
lower
Feb 25, 2009
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 27.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Jerry Hill
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 499
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 499. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline