LAKE COUNTY, Calif. (CN) — A California appellate court panel Wednesday partially reversed a lower court’s decision over the denial of a Lake County luxury resort development, but the project will still need a new environmental report to continue.
The project proposes residential estate villas, hotel units and supporting infrastructure on 16,000 acres in a mostly undeveloped area in Lake County in North Central California. Proponents of the project said it would bring hundreds of career opportunities to the area over the next decade, along with road safety improvements and revenue for community resources.
Lake County was responsible for project approval and issued a final environmental report, which many people complaint about, leading the county to issue an errata to it. The addition stated that the project would bring new wildfire risk factors, like a rise in vehicle traffic and more people. However, it didn’t amend an existing wildfire plan.
In July 2020, the Lake County Board of Supervisors approved the final environmental impact report and the project, leading the Center for Biological Diversity to sue the county.
A Lake County Superior Court judge in 2022 found that a final environmental impact report for the Guenoc Valley project was inadequate because it failed to provide substantial evidence that supported wildfire evacuation safety. That inadequacy meant the county had to make another report.
That part of the decision wasn’t appealed by the Center for Biological Diversity. However, it did appeal a part of the ruling that found the wildfire spread risks detailed in the report were, in fact, adequate.
A three-judge panel of California’s First Appellate District on Wednesday reversed that part of the ruling, meaning a revised environmental report is still needed.
Other challenges raised in the appeal were rejected by the panel.
Kevin Case, a development partner for the Guenoc Valley project, said in a statement to Courthouse News that he’s reviewing the decision.
“We remain committed to setting the benchmark for best-in-class fire-safe development under the oversight of Lake County and in collaboration with leading fire-safety experts and members of the local community,” he said.
Peter J. Broderick, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a statement the decision is “groundbreaking.”
“This is the first time a California appeals court has set aside an environmental review because the agency failed to look at wildfire ignition risk,” Broderick said. “This ruling is a clear signal to those who continue to push for building low-density development in California’s wildfire-prone areas.”
In an email to Courthouse News, Broderick said the trial court’s ruling only addressed evacuation, and the appeal broadened that initial win.
“Now the county will need to revise its [report] to disclose, analyze, and mitigate the project’s impacts on wildfire ignition and spread,” he added.
While the appeals panel agreed with the lower court about rejecting many of the plaintiffs’ arguments, it focused on the risk of wildfire ignition and spread.
“An agency’s inadequate or conclusory discussion of a potentially substantial adverse change in the environment deprives the public of information necessary for informed self-government and constitutes a prejudicial abuse of discretion,” wrote San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Christopher Hite, sitting on the panel by designation.
Hite wrote that the errata issued by the county, in one paragraph, stated that more people living in an area increases fire risk, that more vehicle traffic also increases that risk, and that more houses in the area could cause more fires started by humans.
An agency can’t compensate for a lack of analysis in an environmental report with additional analysis after its issuance, Hite wrote.
“It is fundamental to the purpose of [the California Environmental Quality Act] that the public obtain a full understanding of the environmental impacts of a project from a single source relevant informational document — that being the [environmental impact report],” the judge wrote.
The county has power over determining what methodologies it uses to analyze impacts and mitigation measures. However, it can’t merely cite an unrelated scientific study and claim that increased fire education and a decline in smoking have reduced the causes of wildfire ignition, Hite wrote.
That’s insufficient, the judge said, and is a violation of the state’s environmental law.
The appeals panel was rounded out by Associate Justices Jon Streeter and Jeremy Goldman, appointed respectively by Governors Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom.