The following is a press release issued by the Center for Biological Diversity:
Drew Bird Photography.San Francisco Bay Area Photographer.www.drewbirdphoto.com
A California appeals court has rejected Lake County’s environmental review and approval of a sprawling upscale resort development in Northern California because the county failed to assess wildfire ignition risk.
Today’s decision follows a 2022 trial court ruling ordering the county to set aside its approval of the project because it also failed to consider how the development would affect public safety and wildfire evacuations.
“This groundbreaking decision affirms that local governments and developers must publicly disclose how harmful it is to put a new community in a wildfire zone,” said Peter J. Broderick, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. “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. This ruling is a clear signal to those who continue to push for building low-density development in California’s wildfire-prone areas.”
Placing homes in fire-prone areas leads to more ignitions. Studies have shown that about 95% of California’s wildfires are caused by human sources.
The proposed Guenoc Valley project is a massive luxury resort and high-end residential development envisioned for 16,000 acres in Lake County. The site has a long history of wildfires and was actually on fire when the Center filed its lawsuit.
The property also hosts oak woodlands habitat for sensitive species like golden eagles, foothill yellow-legged frogs and western pond turtles, and it serves as an important wildlife corridor for the region.
The Center, subsequently joined by the California Native Plant Society, sued Lake County in 2020 for approving the project in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
In 2022 the Lake County Superior Court ruled that the county violated CEQA by failing to adequately consider how the project would affect wildfire evacuation. Today’s ruling from the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District goes further: It determined that the county failed to assess how the project would worsen existing wildfire risks.
No one in their right mind would want to invest in a business or major project in commyfornia. Too many safer places for your money. And you sure as hell dont need to spend money in Cracker hating casinos.
How is it foolish or “communist” to not want to put people in harms way by building homes in very high fire risk areas? If local planning agencies had been factoring this concern in years ago, we might have a lot fewer wildfire deaths.
@ general custard –
what?
I’m trying to parse your comment.
“No one in their right mind” – are you saying the investors behind this project aren’t in their right minds? For what reason? The rest of your comment makes me suspect that you think it’s NOT due to wanting to build in an area with extreme wildfire risk, but I could be wrong.
“Would want to invest in a business in commyfornia” – are you saying that California has unnecessarily stringent regulation, or something else? Who are the communists in this situation?
“Too many safer places for your money.” – are you saying that the world’s 5th largest economy, home to huge industries in agriculture, tech, intellectual property, real estate, recreation etc etc is not a good place to invest money?
“And you sure as hell don’t need to spend money in cracker hating casinos.” – What are you even talking about here? Are you saying that Indian casinos don’t like having non-native people spend money in their establishments?
So confused by your statements. Can you elaborate?
Rather than the environmental review, perhaps they should focus on the CCP, Chinese Communist Party connections of the principal behind this project.
Documentation of that is easily found on the internet.
16,000 more acres linked to Chinese nationals.
Do you have a source?
Hong Kong…there is information online. This statement is correct.
The British looked forward to a resort in the only area on earth with fewer straight or non existant teeth. So sorry.
This decision really highlights some of the challenges Lake County faces. With wildfire risks growing, it’s so important to balance development with safety. I’ve visited the area and have always admired its natural beauty, so I hope this ruling helps preserve the environment. Are local officials considering any broader measures to manage wildfire risks moving forward? It’d be great to see proactive strategies that both protect residents and maintain the county’s charm. Development is needed, but sustainability should always come first.