A California state appeals court has dealt another blow to plans for one luxury resort on 16,000 acres of undeveloped land in southern Lake County.

The three-judge panel of the First District Court of Appeal ruled that the environmental review documents for the project failed to alert the public to the increased risks of wildfire ignition that would result from the development.

The verdict is the latest in a ongoing legal battle over Lotusland Investment Group’s Guenoc Valley resort community ― a housing and resort project that would bring an estimated 4,000 people to a fire-prone area southeast of Middletown, near the Napa County line.

The decision is not fatal to the project, which was designed with a variety of fire safety measures that have been improved under the scrutiny of ongoing litigation.

But that means Lake County officials and their consultants must once again revise their environmental analysis of the proposed development as it relates to wildfire risks and then recirculate it to the public.

That means delaying the project’s progress just weeks before it was scheduled to go to county planning commissioners for another round of approvals, Lake County Community Development Director Mireya Turner said.

It’s also “the first time a California appeals court has set aside an environmental review because the agency failed to look at the risk of wildfire ignition,” said Peter Broderick, senior attorney and legal director of urban wildlands for the Center for Biological Diversity, one of the plaintiffs.

“This landmark decision confirms that local governments and developers must publicly disclose the harm of placing a new community in a wildfire zone,” Broderick said.

Court of Appeal Judgment: Guenoc Valley

The Lotusland proposal envisions an ultra-luxurious Wine Country resort and master-planned residential community with up to 400 hotel rooms, 450 resort units and 1,400 residences, built in phases.

Plans also include a golf course, polo fields, equestrian center, spa and wellness facilities and mixed commercial uses developed around the estate built by famous 19th-century British actress Lillie Langtry, although her farmhouse and nearby vineyard are not actually part of the project.

The project would bring an estimated 4,070 new residents to a highly fire-prone area, where the census counted just more than 10,000 people in 2017. The entire county’s population in 2022 was 68,191.

Lake County officials say the project offers a critical economic boost to the area, bringing jobs, housing and revenue, as well as public safety services that benefit surrounding neighbors. The project includes a fire station and helipad that Board of Supervisors Chairman Moke Simon has said “will improve the disaster resilience of the area.”

But after the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society sued the county over what they considered an inadequate environmental impact report, then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra joined the casesays it failed to adequately address bushfire risk and evacuation capacity in the remote area.

A local the superior court judge two years ago agreed as far as forest fires and evacuation safety were concerned. The decision forced Lake County regulators to decertify the environmental report and revoke various permits and planning approvals for the project.

Lake County Superior Court Judge J. David Markham dismissed other objections in the lawsuit, prompting the two conservation groups to appeal. Bonta, meanwhile, settled the state’s case after winning concessions from developers related to wildfire planning, evacuation routes and greenhouse gas emissions.

While the appeal was pending, the county has partially revised the draft environmental impact statement to account for improvements in road circulation and other factors intended to respond to bushfire concerns.

“We remain committed to setting the benchmark for best-in-class fire safe development overseen by Lake County and in collaboration with leading fire safety experts and local community members,” Kevin Case, a development partner for the Guenoc Valley Project, said.

But while Turner, the community development director, initially hoped those improvements could meet the demands of the appeals court, she said Friday the analysis would need to be updated and the revisions subjected to another round of public review.

“From our perspective, this should really be a wake-up call to the county and people in the county who are relying on supervisors to tell them the true cost of this project,” Broderick said. “Instead of trying to write over these issues and go through with the project, it should be honest about the consequences and, given the enormous risk of wildfires in this region, whether it’s worth it.”

“The ruling,” said Nick Jensen, director of conservation programs for the California Native Plant Society, “confirms that there are serious consequences to locating new development in high-risk wildfire areas. In addition to posing a public safety risk, development in the Guenoc Valley would be a disaster for dozens of rare species in dire need of conservation.”

You can reach staff writer Mary Callahan (she/her) at 707-521-5249 or [email protected]. On X (Twitter) @MaryCallahanB.