The Future of CEQA:A Conversation With Some of California’s Premier CEQA

Attorneys 

Jim Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, ModeratorBill Yeates, Law Offices of Bill Yeates

Jennifer Hernandez, Holland and KnightMargaret Sohagi, Sohagi Law Group

Richard Drury, Lozeau DruryMike Zischke, Cox, Castle, & Nicholson

First Proposition for Debate:

After 40 years, CEQA currently serves well, at acceptable costs, its intended functions of (i) protecting California’s

environment, (ii) facilitating public input into agency decision-making, (iii) fostering informed and accountable agency decision-making, and (iv) enhancing inter-agency

coordination. 

Second Proposition for Debate:

After 40 years of aggressive comment letters and litigation filed by environmental groups, labor unions, and economic interests, the costs and regulatory uncertainties associated with CEQA compliance have undermined the California

business climate and have contributed to the balkanization and dysfunction of California government

Third Proposition for Debate:

The principles of CEQA, as interpreted by the courts and generally applied by environmental consultants, have empowered NIMBY groups and have worked

against the implementation of Smart Growth principles favoring infill development at relatively

high densities in areas that will support transit usage and bicycle and pedestrian travel.

 

Fourth Proposition for Debate:

The Legislature should reform CEQA by (i) creating effective procedures for streamlining approvals of projects that (a) are consistent with applicable plans and standards and/or (b) carry out statewide legislative environmental

policies, (ii) encouraging project proponents to minimize environmental impacts, (iii) causing CEQA to facilitate the development of projects consistent with land use patterns envisioned under SB 375, and (iv) making judicial review

less uncertain and time-consuming.