San Bernardino County Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Erickson on June 4 effectively rescinded the San Bernardino County’s 2025 approval of the Lovemore Ranch project in Joshua Tree.
Axel Cramer and Dane Hollar, who were then 27 years old and 24 years old, respectively, in 2020 approached the county, proposing on behalf of their company, Green Collar Builders, what ultimately evolved into the Lovemore Ranch project. There original concept involved construction of 31 separate ½ acre+ lots on 18.4 acres on Alta Loma Drive between Hillview Drive and Sunset Road in Joshua Tree, which was in keeping with the half-acre minimum lot size traditionally adhered to in Joshua Tree.
In time however, the scope of the project was increased to 64 units, such that the lot sizes averaged 0.2875 of an acre, or slightly more than a quarter of an acre.
Residents in Yucca Valley, who had not moved to overtly opposed the original proposal, became alarmed at the uprating in the subdivision’s density, and pressed the county to resist allowing that intense of a land use at the location.
On January 23, 2025, the San Bernardino County Planning Commission approved the 64-unit Lovemore Ranch residential subdivision on the 18.4 acres.
More than 60 local residents, contending that neither the project proponents nor the county gave proper notice to the owners of land that falls within a distance of 300 feet of the project site such that those residents who are to be impacted by the project did not have an opportunity to weigh in with regard to it before its approval, appealed the planning commission’s decision to the board of supervisors.
The board of supervisors, citing California’s Housing Affordability Act, rejected the appeal, giving go-ahead to the project on April 8, 2025. Those officials said state mandates calling on local jurisdictions to approve housing projects to ease the California’s housing crisis tied their hands, such that they had to approve the project.
Residents in Joshua Tree, including those living or owning property at the periphery of Lovemore Ranch and others living both proximate to the site and at a further distance banded together under the collective authority of two groups, those being the Morongo Basin Conservation Association and Joshua Tree Village Neighbors. They retained San Luis Obispo-based attorney Babak Naficy, who . specializes in that province of the law relating to land use, the California Environmental Quality Act and environmental public policy issues.
Nacify, on behalf of those residents, filed a petition for a writ of mandate on May 5, 2025 in San Bernardino Superior Court, asking that the court call upon the county to rescind its approval of the project, asserting the county did not abide by the California Environmental Protection Act nor the county code in approving the Lovemore Ranch project.
One of the issues raised in the lawsuit was the adequacy or lack thereof done in assessing the effect the development would have in the area on and around the project site.
Under the California Environmental Quality Act, an examination of the environmental impacts of a project must be made. Some discretion is left to the governmental decision-making body that oversees land use issues and possesses approval and/or denial authority with regard to a development project as to what type of analysis of the environmental issues is to be carried out and what mitigations of the impacts are to be required.
In evaluating the Lovemore proposal, the county elected to use a mitigated negative declaration, also referred to as an initial study, as the means of providing the project with its environmental certification.
A simple negative declaration is the least exacting type of development impact assessment and a mitigated negative declaration is the second-least stringent assessment. On the other end of the scale, an environmental impact report is the most involved and exhaustive type of environmental analysis and certification there is, followed by an environmental impact study.
An environmental impact report consists of an in-depth study of the project site, the project proposal, the potential and actual impacts the project will have on the site and surrounding area in terms of all conceivable issues, including land use, water use, air quality, potential contamination, noise, traffic, and biological and cultural resources. An environmental impact report specifies in detail what measures can, will and must be carried out to offset those impacts. An environmental impact study is somewhat less exacting and an environmental impact assessment less stringent still. A mitigated negative declaration is a statement by the ultimate land use authority – as in this case the city council – that any identified impacts from the project will be mitigated or offset by the conditions of approval for the project. A negative declaration, the least exacting type of certification there is, merely states that the initial study done by the agency planning staff sufficiently identified any environmental issues and that there are no environmental problems of consequence involved in the proposed project.
The two groups believe the county cut corners in giving Cramer, Hollar and Green Collar Builders clearance to develop the property without undertaking an environmental impact report and making a finding that the conditions of approval ensured that any untoward impacts would be addressed.
It was Nacify’s contention that the county did not take seriously enough its obligation to fully assess the environmental impacts of the project. Judge Erickson concurred, ruling the county erred in not consulting the Regional Water Quality Control Board about Lovemore’s wastewater treatment plant and did not adequately analyze the intensity with which stormwater will flow off of the developed property. Judge Erickson, contradicting the assertion that Lovemore Ranch would have no significant environmental impact, issued a writ of mandate compelling the county to set aside its certification of the mitigated negative declaration. The county’s approval of the project has therefore been voided, pending the submission of a more comprehensive environmental report and its certification.
-Mark Gutglueck