1 / 5

The Future of CEQA: A Conversation With Some of California’s Premier CEQA Attorneys Jim Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose and

The Future of CEQA: A Conversation With Some of California’s Premier CEQA Attorneys Jim Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Moderator Bill Yeates , Law Offices of Bill Yeates Jennifer Hernandez, Holland and Knight Margaret Sohagi , Sohagi Law Group Richard Drury, Lozeau Drury

kiril
Download Presentation

The Future of CEQA: A Conversation With Some of California’s Premier CEQA Attorneys Jim Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose and

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Future of CEQA: A Conversation With Some of California’s Premier CEQA Attorneys Jim Moose, Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley, Moderator Bill Yeates, Law Offices of Bill Yeates Jennifer Hernandez, Holland and Knight Margaret Sohagi, Sohagi Law Group Richard Drury, Lozeau Drury Mike Zischke, Cox, Castle, & Nicholson

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

More Related