BOS denies cannabis farm use permit

LAKEPORT >> Following a marathon public hearing in a rarely seen standing room only board chambers, the Lake County Board of Supervisors Tuesday voted 3-2 to grant an appeal to deny the use permit for a large commercial cannabis cultivation project in the High Valley area of Clearlake Oaks. District 4 Supervisor Tina Scott and District 5 Supervisor Jessica Pyska cast the “no” votes.

The permit allowed SourzHVR, Inc./Aviona LLC to turn 80 acres of a 1,640-acre parcel on High Valley Road into a cannabis farm with multiple storage and drying facilities. Don and Margie Van Pelt, owners of a property adjoining the proposed cannabis site, filed the appeal on July 28, 2021, asking the BOS to deny the use permit that the Lake County Planning Commission had approved six days earlier.

Tuesday’s five-hour discussion started with a presentation by Lake County Assistant Planner Katherine Schaefers, who surprised many, when she reversed the county staff’s original position. She had recommended project approval to the Planning Commission, then did a turnabout and recommended appeal approval to the BOS. The change in position, in part, may have been the result of Code Enforcement’s finding that the Sourz HVR team had constructed hoopa houses, some with electrical connections, on the proposed site without permits. Schaefers said the planning staff recommended approval of the appeal and the applicant would need to “clear all violations.”

In the appeal, the Van Pelts stated, “It is obvious to us that there has been a lack of independent, qualified, professional level review and analysis of the project.” Don Van Pelt told the BOS, “Essentially everything that could go wrong has gone wrong… The neighbors and I have exhausted all efforts available to try and mitigate this… We need to look at ordinances. It’s not all about money. It’s about what’s right and what’s wrong.”

The Van Pelts and other High Valley residents expressed their concerns about possible illegal grading at the project site, odor, water availability, the area’s biology, cultural resources, security, non-compliance with zoning ordinances, traffic and lack of a CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) study. If the project goes back to the Planning Commission, the Van Pelts said they want it to have an updated property management plan, a traffic study done by a traffic engineer, a hydrology report prepared by an independent engineering firm, and a CEQ A document that specifies adequate mitigation measures to reduce the project’s significant traffic, water, odor, dust, biological and cultural resource impacts.

The better part of the hearing was taken up by the clash of legal minds for both sides. The appellants’ lawyer, Brad Johnson, began his presentation with a request for BOS Chair Bruno Sabatier, to recuse himself from the hearing. The land use and CEQA attorney explained that Sabatier had received related documents prior to the public hearing. Sabatier refused to recuse himself, stating that the matter had no financial implications for him and he had no personal interest in it. Johnson challenged Sabatier to not interrupt while he was presenting, to which Sabatier responded that he can if he wanted to. County Counsel Anita Grant stepped in, coaxing Johnson to address the BOS with respect and Sabatier to allow the presentation to move forward until the speaker was done.

Johnson’s slide deck, complete with photos of the property at initial stages of development, expounded on the gamut of irregularities listed in the Van Pelts’ appeal and presented by the other High Valley residents including: the lack of an environmental impact report, a detailed project description, total number of employees, analysis of grading and dust activities and evidence of water availability, as well as air, traffic and transportation impacts, construction of hoopa houses, use of generators, pipelines running from the Brassfield Winery to the proposed cannabis site, and more.

Using notes but no slides in his rebuttal, the applicants’ lawyer, George McDonald of Katzoff & Riggs LLP, expressed his disdain at the process, calling it “dirty litigation” and “a trial by ambush.” He said the appellants’ legal team submitted their documents totaling 140 pages the night before the public hearing. “Everything discussed today was brought to the Planning Commission, nothing new,” McDonald said. He claimed some of the photos shown at the BOS hearing were not of the project in question and lots of the information were misleading — describing it as “textbook manipulation.”

McDonald’s responses to the issues raised by the appellants and their lawyer include the following: High Valley is an agricultural area and cannabis cultivation is agriculture. The cultivation site was not virgin land (cattle had been raised on the property) and had been tilled before so a permit was not needed to till the land. On the issue of lights, a flood light was used for 48 hours when it was hot during the day to allow employees to work safely at night. Setbacks for neighbors far exceed the requirements because “it was good for the neighbors.” Photos presented taken were out of context. Cannabis growing is allowed in California. Structures constructed were temporary on an emergency basis and are being taken down. No growing is happening inside the hoopa houses. Two diesel generators were approved by the state for use without a permit.

McDonald said he saw no direct evidence of the project’s significant impact on the environment and asked the board to reject the appeal and to continue the proceedings to another time.

Late into the afternoon and past the close of business day, project supporters and opponents continued their verbal exchange culminating in BOS discussions and a motion to approve the appeal advanced by District 3 Supervisor Eddie Crandell.