Jackie Krentzman is a Bay Area-based writer and editor.  

---

Apple Valley Council Member Art Bishop knows multiple people who wanted to build an accessory dwelling unit in their backyard. But there’s a catch: They have Joshua trees on their property. And the cost to count and potentially relocate them — as required by state law — might surpass the cost of building the unit itself. As a result, they abandoned the projects.

“These stories are not unique,” says Bishop. “This new regulation can potentially be quite expensive, based on the number of trees you might have on your property. It can also be very time-consuming to work through the permitting process and can delay projects significantly.”

The Western Joshua tree thrives between 2,000 and 6,000 feet in elevation, primarily in the desert mountain region in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Due to climate change and exurban sprawl, the iconic succulent is losing its natural habitat.

In 2020, the state placed the tree on the candidate list for protection under the California Endangered Species Act. While the Fish and Game Commission has until 2033 to make a decision, lawmakers passed the Western Joshua Tree Conservation Act to regulate development in the meantime, with a set of restrictions, fees, and permits to minimize the impact on the trees. (Typically, species receive similar protection even before they are formally declared endangered.)

However, city officials, homeowners, and developers in the region say that these regulations are raising construction costs drastically and delaying — or even scuttling — housing, commercial, and infrastructure development. A coalition of impacted cities estimates that the total cost — including the cost to assess, monitor, and relocate — ranges from $8,000 to $10,000 per tree. They say it can add a year or more to the permitting process for new projects.

Hesperia, a growing city of 100,000 at the top of the Cajon Pass, is fertile ground for Joshua trees. The city cherishes the tree so much that it’s a part of the city logo. But Mayor Brigit Bennington says the new rules leave the city stuck between conservation mandates and housing demands.

“We have long protected the Western Joshua tree because we consider them very beautiful and recognize its importance in our region for our ecosystem and our heritage,” Bennington says. “California wants us to build housing, especially affordable housing, but they’re tying our hands because we have so many Joshua trees.”

Lynn Sweet, a research ecologist, Ph.D., says that she understands and sympathizes with the cities’ concerns — and that the Joshua tree is facing unprecedented challenges. (Sweet commented only on the tree’s status and habitat, not the merits of state law.)

“The primary threat to Joshua trees is climate change, which increases temperature and aridity,” she says. “This impacts the tree’s ability to sustain populations and to create new seedlings. The next threat is wildfires, either human-caused or natural. They cause trees to die out, and because of the drier habitat, they may not be able to replace themselves.”

The other hazard, she notes, is human encroachment. Developments uproot wide swathes of trees and change their natural habitat. Pollution, such as tailpipe emissions, creates nitrogen in the atmosphere that then drifts into the trees’ habitat and promotes non-native grasses that crowd out wildflowers, promote wildfires, and generally disrupt the native ecosystem.

Housing or trees?

The need for more housing clashing with the need to protect California’s iconic landscapes and species is hardly new. But what makes the problem particularly acute in the mountain desert region is that homes there sell for less than elsewhere in the state, making it one of the more affordable (and fastest growing) parts of the state.

“Victorville faces economic challenges unlike other areas of the state,” City Manager Keith C. Metzler says. “This act is impeding the development of affordable housing in our city, which is one of the most affordable places to live in California. Listing the Joshua Tree [as endangered] at a time when California is grappling with housing shortages and rising homelessness doesn’t make sense.”

For property owners, the costs add up quickly. They must conduct a census and issue a report on the number and size of trees on their property. (In many cases, they will need to hire a desert native plant specialist.) The survey considers not only full-grown trees, but “pups,” seeds, roots, and fallen branches as trees. Then, the owner must pay a fee in lieu of completing compensatory mitigation (that goes into a conservation fund) that can range from $150 to $2,500 per tree, based on a variety of factors, including the tree’s size and proximity to Joshua Tree National Park. Homeowners are also responsible for the cost of any relocation if the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) deems it necessary.

“People just give up or move elsewhere,” Bennington says.

Adelanto Mayor Pro Tem Daniel Ramos says the cost impact is so draconian that it’s endangering the fiscal health of his city of 38,000. He estimates the city has lost $10 to $15 million in development because of the act, including a 200-unit, affordable housing complex.

But Ramos says the greatest cost falls on the consumer. “A developer may decide to still build here, but they will build the cost of tree mitigation and relocation fees and costs into the sales price,” he says. “The average single-family home in Adelanto today is selling for about $400,000. But that can become $550,000 to $600,000 for properties that have Joshua trees.”

Silverwood Development, in Hesperia, is a 15,000-unit housing project that was in the works well before the act became law. The developer voluntarily replanted 400 trees. Once the act was adopted, the developer transplanted another 200 trees. Altogether, the cost for mitigation, permitting, and relocation reached $7 million. The permitting process took just shy of two years.

Silverwood General Manager John Ohanian suggests some refinements that would ease the process for developers. He thinks developers should get credit for every tree they transplant and should not have to pay a mitigation fee for those trees. He also advocates for a higher minimum acreage exemption from transplanting and a CDFW-identified area for transplantation.

“Most projects do not have the luxury of large amounts of open space for transplanting,” he says. “Processing time has been a little slow, but I am confident that as CDFW hits its stride, the processing window can be shortened.” 

Homeowners are not the only ones affected — large commercial developments are as well. Currently in Hesperia, 11 million square feet of industrial and commercial space are in the pipeline, says Bennington. She is not sure these projects will come to fruition because of the mitigation and relocation costs.

“Our revenue is largely based on both sales and property taxes,” she says. “So, if some of these projects fall through, our ability to fund much-needed infrastructure projects will be impaired, not to mention the loss of local jobs that these projects create.” 

The Desert Tortoise argument

While cities believe that the act is too extreme, they worry even more about what will happen if the tree becomes an endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. They say it would make the permitting process more burdensome and time-consuming — and that the designation is unnecessary.

“While there are maybe a few thousand desert tortoises, whose population has dropped precipitously in recent years, there are more than eight million Western Joshua Trees, which are still growing and propagating,” says Bishop.

According to experts, the state is considering the Joshua tree for endangered classification not because there are so few (estimates range from four to 11 million), but because its habitat is rapidly declining due to climate change and human encroachment.

Bishop and others argue that cities and counties should have the authority to regulate Joshua trees themselves. For example, Victorville has local ordinances in place that protect the tree. Violating the ordinance is punishable by a fine, jail time, or both. 

Fifteen cities in the Cal Cities Desert Mountain Division sent a list of seven recommendations to the state that would amend the act. These include reducing monitoring and reporting, not requiring property owners to pay both a mitigation fee and bear the cost of relocating the trees, expanding relocation exemptions, and streamlining the permitting process.

Still, some city officials would like the state to go further. Adelanto Mayor Pro Tem Ramos calls the recommendations a “welcome step in the right direction,” but thinks high desert cities like his should be fully exempted from the law. Adelanto just returned to fiscal solvency, and he fears that the impact of the act will sink it once again.

“The listing of the Western Joshua tree has had a negative impact on economic development, job creation, and housing development within our city,” Ramos says. “This calls for an emergency exemption for all cities that are being handcuffed by this act.” 

Ramos notes that the high desert region is growing rapidly. But if people can’t afford to buy homes or rent, they either won’t come or will have a lower quality of life.

“Many people are being priced out of housing in Southern California, which draws more families here who deserve safe, affordable places to live,” he says. If we cannot provide adequate housing and essential services such as shopping, healthcare facilities, and grocery options, the quality of life that attracts people to our high desert could suffer, and some may be forced into suboptimum living conditions.”

Still, most city officials are optimistic that they can work with CDFW to adjust the act to adequately support the Western Joshua tree without slowing development.

“I think this act was enacted with genuine intentions to protect the Western Joshua tree,” says Bishop. “I don’t think the state wants to use it to hinder development. Our hope is that Cal Cities and the state can work together to protect the Western Joshua tree in a responsible way that works for all.”