Joshua Tree Downtown Bus. Alliance v. County of San Bernardino CA4/2
1 Cal. App. 5th 677
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Dynamic Development proposed a 9,100 sq ft general retail store on a 1.45-acre lot in Joshua Tree; intended tenant was Dollar General.
- County processed a mitigated negative declaration and approved a conditional use permit after public hearings, despite widespread local opposition.
- Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance petitioned for a writ of mandate alleging CEQA violations (failure to analyze/require an EIR for urban decay), inadequate project disclosure (tenant identity), and inconsistency with the Joshua Tree Community Plan.
- Trial court found substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the project could cause urban decay and ordered reversal (required EIR); it rejected claims about inadequate project description and plan inconsistency.
- Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding the County considered urban-decay issues adequately, there was no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant urban decay, tenant identity disclosure was adequate/not required under CEQA, and the project was reasonably consistent with the Community Plan.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an EIR was required because project could cause urban decay | Project (Dollar General) would drive local businesses out, causing long-term vacancies and physical deterioration — CEQA requires an EIR | County considered urban-decay risk, found no evidence of negative economic effects or physical environmental impacts; negative declaration appropriate | Reversed trial court: no substantial evidence supports a fair argument that project would cause significant urban decay; EIR not required |
| Whether County failed to consider urban decay in its initial study | County ignored commenters and did not meaningfully analyze urban-decay risk | County did consider urban-decay and economic impacts and concluded no evidence supported significant environmental impact | Held County did consider urban decay; its conclusion that no evidence supported significant impact was reasonable |
| Whether County improperly concealed Dollar General as intended tenant | County attempted to hide tenant, which is relevant to environmental review and community-plan analysis | Tenant identity was disclosed in multiple places; CEQA does not require identification of end-user for a land-use approval | Held no defect: tenant identity was sufficiently disclosed and, in any event, CEQA does not require tenant-specific review here |
| Whether project was inconsistent with the Joshua Tree Community Plan | Project conflicts with Plan goals to encourage small independent businesses and avoid out-of-scale/regional or big-box retail | Project was not a regional or big-box store, complied with development standards, and Plan language is discretionary and amorphous | Held County reasonably found project consistent with the Community Plan; challenger failed to show abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Fullerton Joint Union High School Dist. v. State Bd. of Education, 32 Cal.3d 779 (explains CEQA's purpose to ensure environmental considerations in governmental decisions)
- Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal.App.4th 1359 (limits initial-study requirements and explains review of negative declarations)
- Maintain Our Desert Environment v. Town of Apple Valley, 124 Cal.App.4th 430 (holds CEQA does not require disclosure of specific end-user/tenant for a project approval)
- Anderson First Coalition v. City of Anderson, 130 Cal.App.4th 1173 (CEQA covers indirect environmental impacts such as urban decay when economic effects foreseeably cause physical environmental harm)
- Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal.App.4th 903 (inconsistency with land-use standards adopted to mitigate environmental impacts can support a fair argument of significant impact)
- Save Our Heritage Organisation v. City of San Diego, 237 Cal.App.4th 163 (discusses standard and deference for agency determinations of general plan consistency)