Soc'y

Soc'y v. Cnty. of El Dorado

Good Law
241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 421·30 Cal. App. 5th 358
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaDecember 17, 2018C084872California6,393 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Duarte, J.

*363 Aesthetics are subjective. But as we explained in Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903 , 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 791 ( Pocket Protectors ), and as the trial court found, lay opinions can provide substantial evidence to support a fair argument that a project may have a significant aesthetic impact on the environment, triggering the need to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ( Pub. Resources Code § 21000, et seq. ).

*364 Georgetown is a quaint unincorporated Gold Rush-era hamlet in rural El Dorado County (the County, including defendant Board of Supervisors). Developer SimonCRE Abbie, LLC and its principals (Denton and Carolyn Beam, all collectively real parties) want to erect a Dollar General chain discount store on three vacant Main Street lots. Local residents acting through plaintiff Georgetown Preservation Society (Society) objected, claiming this would impair the look of their town. After real parties slightly modified the project, the County adopted a mitigated negative declaration, finding there was no basis to require an EIR. In response to the Society's mandamus petition, the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.