LAKEPORT >> Following lengthy debate the Board of Supervisors on Oct. 22 finally decided to continue the consideration of an appeal of AB24-02 regarding a major-use permit, UP-26 for a significant cannabis grow near the Highland Springs Park recreation facility.
Lake County Code requires an appeal no less than 96 hours prior to the hearing according to County Development Department, which is directed by Mireya Turner. “The purpose is to avoid a large amount of documents arriving before the Board of Supervisors without sufficient time for review,” Turner said. On October 11 CDD received 281 pages from the permittee, Highland. “We’ve not had sufficient time to review these documents and with 281 pages it’ll take more than a day or two,” Turner said. “And we need to review the changes in the project to see how that impacts our environmental analysis, and we need to confer with County Counsel what to do with a program that’s modified after it’s been approved but is now getting appealed.”
The parcel for the grow is located at: 7408, 7522, 7527, 7634, & 7746 Highland Springs Road and 7257 & 7357 Amber Ridge Road, Lakeport. Highland Farms Ltd. is part of a group of cannabis projects located in the county that strive to cultivate, produce, process, and manufacture cannabis and cannabis products. This group has worked with the county for many years, while raising awareness of the county as a location for cannabis operations. Highland originally submitted the Project application in 2021.
The Project will occur in rural Lake County and includes seven parcels, but project operations will only occur on three parcels. The property includes over 500 acres, yet project site will only use about 27 acres which is five percent of the property. Remaining property will be maintained in its natural state. The project includes cannabis cultivation, but also construction of structures associated with cannabis processing and distribution, ancillary outbuildings and upgrades to the roads that lead to the Project.
For several years, Highland worked with CDD to conduct additional studies and modify the project parameters in order to address concerns and comments raised during this process. After several years, the project came before the Planning Commission for approval, which was granted on May 23, 2024. Board Chair Bruno Sabatier noted his preference for a continuance. “But I’ll hear more of the changes made and are based upon trying to make the project more palatable to the community without having a full review of it. I think we want to give both parties a chance to come to compromise or maybe it can’t happen without a full review.”
Representing appellants Tom Lajcik and Margaux Kamabara, was Casey Shorrock, an attorney with Samach, Simmons & Dunn. She noted all parties had a chance to review materials submitted thus far. “Not hearing the appeal today on the modified site plan will prejudice against Tom and Margaux, and will also prejudice community members who support the appeal.”
James Anderson, attorney with Everview Ltd., spoke on behalf of Highland Farms. He said the project was approved by the Planning Commission based on the County Code. Anderson clarified that currently there is not an approved project or an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. “I won’t get into the California Environmental Quality Act matters but I’d like to point out the appellants provided a prodigious amount of material until late last week and we’re still working through it as well as County staff,” he said. “A continuance would grant staff and the applicants to properly respond to these comments in an effective manner, they raised several new issues that staff needs to analyze, and the applicant would like the ability to respond too.”
County Counsel Lloyd Guintivano pointed out that the situation before the board was a case of de Novo, and the Latin term de novo is used in the U.S. legal system to refer to something that is started over from the beginning, or from the new. For instance, an appellate court might review all of the facts of a trial and order the court to hear the case again – without referring to any of the prior assumptions or conclusions. “So, the board can take into consideration any proposals that may be presented to you by any of the parties at a public hearing for the purposes of your board deciding whether to grant the appeal or deny the appeal, or grant the appeal in part, or deny the appeal in part,” he said. Sabatier added, “We need that review in front of us- we’re not the experts, our CDD has the expertise and will be able to do the review … I’m still in favor of providing a continuance and it looks like there is a consensus to move forward.”
Following a bit more options of possible action from Guintivano, Sabatier asked Director Turner about a Mid-December date to reconvene. “That date was offered strictly an update,” Turner said. “We’re more comfortable going forward with a public hearing on January 14.” She then clarified a document submission needs to be turned in 15 days prior to a public hearing. “The applicant has been working to make the package a little more palatable to the community. We don’t want this to drag on, we prefer to get this done. But we don’t know what’s going to come in. If it’s just letters and response, that’s no big deal, as long as it’s not a substantive change in project.”
Turner cautioned incoming documents must be upload to the county website by December 30. “You got to allow for a one week for agenda review so, we work with a 15-day time frame.” A motion was made for a vote on a continuance, and it carried unanimously.
