CEQA Analysis of Development Displaced by Projects Approved, Rejected or Reduced in Density

By George Lefcoe*

Abstract:
In order to prevent the avoidable environmental degradation that often accompanies new development, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires state and local decision makers to consider the potential environmental impacts of their discretionary approvals, even when they are voting entitlements for purely private development projects. Virtually any proposed development in most California cities can add to local traffic congestion and air pollution, and for this reason, can be rejected under CEQA.    Because of California's staggeringly high population growth rates, projects rejected at one location are likely to find their way to another site. Does CEQA demand that before voting to approve, reject, or reduce the density of a project, a local government entity consider the environmental impacts at the site where the displaced development is likely to arise? Two recently decided appellate court cases reached opposite answers to this question. After examining Muzzy Ranch Company v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commission and Wal-Mart v. City of Turlock, the paper concludes that local governments should evaluate the environmental consequences of a project at both the proposed project location  and at the likely displaced location (if the project were  denied).  Regrettably, this added requirement joins an already extensive list of topics covered in California's environmental review process, and could provide yet another basis for courts to set aside local government decisions made without regard to it. Yet, local government officials disregarding the consequences of displaced development risk reducing the density or rejecting a proposed development that is more environmentally benign than the practical alternatives.