SAN FRANCISCO—The recent California BuildingIndustry Association vs. Bay Area AirQuality Management District ruling, which has beencommonly referred to as the "ReverseCEQA" case, confirms a fundamental limitation onthe reach and scope of CEQA analysis and mitigation requirements,based on the plain language and basic thrust of the statute, butdevelopers shouldn't get too comfortable, ArthurCoon, shareholder and co-chair of MillerStarr Regalia's land-use practice group, tellsGlobeSt.com. Since the case's decision had been long awaited, wespoke to several experts about its implications. Here, Coon givesus his opinion on the key takeaways of the Court's opinion and whatit means for developers goingforward.

GlobeSt.com: What is the key takeawayfrom the Court's opinion in this case?

Coon: There is ageneral rule that CEQA only requires a project developer to analyzeand mitigate for adverse environmental changes that the proposedproject itself will cause—whether these are new adverse effects orcontributions to existing adverse environmental conditions thatcause them to be worse than they already are. CEQA does not operate"in reverse." It requires analysis of a project's impacts on theenvironment, not the existing environment's impact on a project,i.e., its future residents and users.