The California Environmental Quality Act and Local Planning

Abstract This paper describes the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and its importance to local planning in California. More than an environmental protection act, CEQA governs the review and approval process of all large developments in the state, both public and private, and is implemented primarily by local governments. CEQA has spawned a multi-million dollar industry, producing approximately 25,000 environmental documents per year. To understand CEQA is to understand how planning has evolved in California, how it might change in the future, and how it differs from planning systems in other states. This research found that local planning directors are in remarkable agreement that CEQA has improved planning practice in California, and that CEQA is nearly as important as General Plans. The research also confirmed that planning decisions are of ten made piecemeal, rather than comprehensively. Several factors contribute to that pattern, and CEQA may be one. On balance, however, CEQA adds intellige...

[1]  Amitai Etzioni,et al.  Mixed-Scanning: A "Third" Approach to Decision-Making , 1967 .

[2]  David P. McCaffrey,et al.  Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform. , 1986 .

[3]  Amitai Etzioni.  Mixed-Scanning Revisited , 1986 .

[4]  Raymond J. Burby,et al.  Plans Can Matter! The Role of Land Use Plans and State Planning Mandates in Limiting the Development of Hazardous Areas , 1994 .

[5]  Kenneth Pearlman.  State Environmental Policy Acts: Local Decision Making and Land Use Planning , 1977 .

[6]  T. J. Kent.  The Urban General Plan , 1990 .

[7]  C. Lindblom.  THE SCIENCE OF MUDDLING THROUGH , 1959 .

[8]  R. Olshansky.  Evaluation of the california environmental quality act , 1996 .

[9]  Jeffrey T. Renz.  The Coming of Age of State Environmental Policy Acts , 1984 .

[10]  M. Goggin,et al.  Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[11]  Alan Altshuler.  THE GOALS OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING , 1965 .

[12]  F. Bosselman,et al.  The quiet revolution in land use control , 1971 .

[13]  Scott A. Bollens,et al.  State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives , 1992 .

[14]  J. Kaufman,et al.  Comment to Comparison of Current Planning Theories: Counterparts and Contradictions , 1979 .

[15]  J. Forester.  Bounded Rationality and the Politics of Muddling Through , 1984 .

[16]  D. Gale.  Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs: A Comparative Analysis , 1992 .

[17]  C. Lindblom.  Still Muddling, Not Yet Through. , 1979 .

[18]  M. Meyerson.  Building the Middle-Range Bridge for Comprehensive Planning , 1956 .

[19]  Gary G. Rudholm,et al.  The Limits of Regulation Evidence from Local Plan Implementation in California , 1989 .

[20]  E. Banfield.  Ends and Means in Planning , 1985 .

[21]  D. Schoen.  The Reflective Practitioner , 1983 .