This Comment will summarize the CEQA review process to which California agencies must adhere. Next, Part III of this Comment will examine San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue v. Stanislaus and Kings County Farm Bureau v. Hanford, two landmark California appellate court cases that have interpreted the CEQA review process prior to the amended regulations. Included in Part III A is an analysis of how lead agencies have treated cumulative impacts in the past during the CEQA review process and an explanation of the recent amendments purporting to codify that interpretation. In Part III B, this Comment will explain the recent amendments to CEQA legislation. Finally, based on the implications of the revised legislation, Part IV of this Comment will propose further revisions that should be incorporated into CEQA to allow for a larger scope of environmental review of cumulative impacts and for a more controlled development of California.
Erroneous and Unauthorized Revisions to the California Environmental Quality Act: 1998 CEQA Revisions Violate Legislative Intent and Contradict Judicial Holdings, 30 Golden Gate U. L. Rev.