Two Views: "Reverse CEQA"
Editor’s Note: With this edition, the Public Law Journal begins an occasional series of articles focusing on issues pending before the California Supreme Court of interest to public law practitioners. We have asked the authors to roll up their sleeves and have a little fun letting us know what they think the Supreme Court should do.
Public law practitioners spend many hours guiding clients through review of the projects under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), analyzing how proposed projects impact the environment. In California Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District, the California Supreme Court addresses the so-called "reverse CEQA" issue – do entities doing CEQA review of proposed projects have to consider the impact that the environment has on those projects? Specifically, the Supreme Court has asked the parties to address the following issue: "Under what circumstances, if any, does the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) require an analysis of how existing environmental conditions will impact future residents or users (receptors) of a proposed project?"
Beth Collins-Burgard on one side, and Matt Vespa and Kevin Bundy on the other, present two views on "reverse CEQA.’