Case ID: cal-3d_23/html/0812-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[L.A. No. 30922.
    Mar. 22, 1979.]
    CITIZENS TASK FORCE ON SOHIO et al., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF HARBOR COMMISSIONERS OF THE PORT OF LONG BEACH, Respondent; SOHIO TRANSPORTATION COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, Real Party in Interest.
    
      Counsel
    Antonio Rossmann for Petitioners.
    Leonard Putnam, City Attorney, Leslie E. Still, Jr., David M. Schacter and Richard L. Landes, Deputy City Attorneys, for Respondent.
    Ball, Hunt, Hart, Brown & Baerwitz, Charles E. Greenberg, Allan E. Tebbetts and Arthur D. Cohen for Real Party in Interest.
    Janice E. Kerr, Hector Anninos and Anne K. Mester as Amici Curiae.
   Opinion

When two or more public agencies equally qualify as the lead agency for the purpose of preparing an EIR, “the agency which is to act first on the project in question shall be the Lead Agency (following the principle that the environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in governmental planning).” (Cal. Admin. Code, tit. 14, § 15065, subd. (c).) Because the Port was the first to act on the Sohio project, it became the lead agency and hence was required to defend the adequacy of the entire EIR under Public Resources Code section ,21167; the PUC thereby became a “responsible” agency {id., § 21069), whose actions are governed by section 21167.3. Accordingly, although the PUC could not properly be made a party because its joinder would “deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter” (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a)), the court should have permitted the action to proceed against the Port alone.

For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered that the above-entitled cause be transferred to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County.

Bird, C. J., did not participate.