This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
CEQA

Center for Biological Diversity v. County of Lake, Board of Supervisors of the County of Lake, and Does 1-20

Published: Aug. 25, 2023 | Result Date: Jan. 13, 2023 | Filing Date: Aug. 20, 2020 |

Case number: CV421152 Settlement –  Non-monetary relief

Judge

J. David Markham

Court

Lake County Superior Court


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Andrew R. Contreiras
(California Dept. of Justice)

Aruna M. Prabhala
(Center for Biological Diversity)

Peter J. Broderick
(Center for Biological Diversity)


Defendant

Arthur F. Coon
(Miller Starr Regalia)

Nicole D. Johnson
(Office of the Lake County Counsel)


Facts

On July 21, 2020, Lake County and its Board of Supervisors approved the Guenoc Vally Mixed Use Planned Development Project proposed by Lotusland Investment Holdings. The project, publicized as a luxury resort including residential estates, a golf course, and polo club, would encompass 16,000 acres in a mostly undeveloped space which contained numerous plant and wildlife species, such as the Golden eagle and Western pond turtle. However, the project site is in a largely designated high fire hazard severity zone, with the most recent wildfire event occurring in 2020. In August 2020, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a complaint against Lotusland Investment, the County and others for declaratory and injunctive relief. The State, through the Department of Justice, later intervened.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs challenged the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and the project's approval. At the heart of their contentions was defendants' failure to disclose or adequately analyze the environmental impacts of the project; failure to identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to reduce them; and failure to consider other reasonable alternatives to the project.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants denied all contentions, arguing that they followed all applicable laws.

Result

After the court vacated the County's EIR certification and approval of the project, the case settled as between the State and defendant. As part of the settlement, the revised project must include wildfire ignition risk mitigation measures such as removing three development clusters; additional road connections to reduce dead-end roads; improved hardscape; and retaining a wildfire expert. Other conditions included: procedures addressing greenhouse gas impacts (including but not limited to use of solar panels, electric vehicle charging stations/equipment, and purchasing greenhouse gas offset credits. However, the Center for Biological Diversity and the California Native Plant Society, were not part of the settlement.


#141301

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390