[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6102580,"mediaKeyId","2803927-4c5d2c7ac10c54e3aa0e00732ddcb5d3","parentId",2803927,"title","Lake County planning commission denies Little High Valley cannabis permit amid road, safety and school setback concerns","audioSeconds",4928,"startMs",559000,"endMs",5487000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803927-4c5d2c7ac10c54e3aa0e00732ddcb5d3&start=559&end=5487","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803927-4c5d2c7ac10c54e3aa0e00732ddcb5d3/thumbnail_559000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6102580/Lake-County/California/Lake-County-planning-commission-denies-Little-High-Valley-cannabis-permit-amid-road-safety-and-school-setback-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102580-37a5fdaf4be9d4d8a7e387aff6761e04/orig.mp4?Expires=1773636155&Signature=INL9DxlXVjuTiff2jkWPYpo5KANFERHt3JEo0QeytWopoTTNMfsPCRG7txlQmL0x-AusxqhmIHkAi1O8wKiK8~aj171EegPLKk8xCndTuuRo0yd1qCOXbxdcfOVWRBRsKZ3KC5ZocmYGuLccEwUm1RLWdmnvuiq-9W1DQOnDg~UO8oVbTr9m4lI9ORpo7F-oUcPZfYN~SSWqXCVGQDUZJnOsqGSjCbIxfnm7MQxyUf6ov~8-tx3uiYegc5MbZz7Zq-F8-rTdbEeZIcNA6IP8csiIvj9REwgUCsaEUFvDnrfA2j5uozRtrgTp0kdhItnw1Faxemle3HxxTfP8beXsJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lake County CA","date","2025-03-27T15:36:01Z","article","The Lake County Planning Commission on March 27 denied a major use permit for Little High Valley, a proposed outdoor cannabis cultivation operation and processing facility at 17870 Little High Valley Road in Lower Lake.

Staff had recommended approval after a change in legal precedent: on March 20 the California Department of Cannabis Control disclosed that the California Supreme Court had depublished the Court of Appeal decision in JC Crandall v. County of Santa Barbara, removing that decision as binding precedent. Senior planner Mary Claybon told commissioners the depublishing led staff to conclude the project now “meets the findings required for major use permit approval.”

Why it matters: Commissioners and dozens of nearby residents focused most of the hearing on road and emergency‑access standards set by state fire safety regulations (often cited as PRC 4290/4291 and implementing Title 14), the adequacy of private easements and associated maintenance agreements, and whether a nearby registered homeschool is protected by the county and state setback rules for cannabis cultivation.

Commissioners and the public described narrow, steep and partially eroded private road sections leading to the site, disputed whether routine maintenance would be sufficient to meet state fire‑safety expectations for commercial operations and questioned whether required road improvements would be feasible without additional permits or major grading. County staff told the commission that 42 90/42 91 rules can require roadway improvements to the nearest public road but that applicants can apply for an exception and demonstrate an “equivalent” standard.

Neighbors, including Joni Henderson and Bill Landers, told commissioners they live on the shared roads and described water shortages and erosion they attribute in part to recent work on the route. Henderson told the commission the issue was personal: she said her son is “severely immunocompromised” and urged the commission to prioritize his health when weighing setbacks for places where children gather. Henderson and others also questioned whether documentation submitted by the applicant and some site work had been permitted.

The applicant’s consultant, Trey Sherrill, and farm manager, Travis Lisenby, described the project details: two acres (87,120 square feet) of outdoor canopy, a proposed 3,500‑square‑foot processing building, water storage, and eight parking spaces including one ADA stall. Sherrill said the project’s hydrology study estimated 21.6 acre‑feet of groundwater recharge in a normal year and that projected cultivation water use would be about 4.2–5.8 acre‑feet per year (reduced by 10% under the project’s drought management plan). Lisenby said the operation would start smaller and scale up, noting they planned to plant roughly 1,500 plants per acre when fully built out.

To address commissioners’ primary concerns about road standards, the applicant said it was willing to remove the proposed processing building from the scope so the project would be treated as outdoor cultivation only — a change the applicant said would permit the county to treat the parcel under agricultural road standards per Board of Supervisors Resolution 2019‑124. County staff said such a modification could be noted and the permit description amended at the hearing if the commission chose to approve with that limitation.

Commissioners pressed legal counsel and staff about whether a home‑based homeschool qualifies as a “school” for state and county setback calculations. County counsel explained that both state and county cannabis setbacks reference the defined term “school” (covering kindergarten–grade 12) but that the county and state definitions exclude private schools “in which education is primarily conducted in private homes.” Counsel said that under current definitions a private home‑based homeschool is not treated as a school for the specific cannabis setback calculation, though commissioners may propose permit conditions based on project‑specific facts if those facts bear on the findings the commission must make.

After extended public comment and discussion, a motion to deny the permit carried. Chair Chavez announced that the motion to deny passed; the commission recorded the tally as three votes in favor of denial and one opposed. Chair Chavez reminded the applicant that the county’s zoning ordinance provides a seven‑calendar‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.

Looking ahead: Staff advised that the applicant may apply for an exception to PRC 4290/4291 or amend the project to remove the processing facility and limit the action to outdoor cultivation only. The applicant stated on the record that they would accept removing the processing facility if that was required. The commission did not approve the project as presented.

Votes at a glance: Motion to deny major use permit UP21‑07 — motion passed (3 yes, 1 no). The applicant was notified of the seven‑calendar‑day appeal period.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Meeting - Thursday March 27, 2025 - Meeting begins at 9:00 am","oneSentenceSummary","The Lake County Planning Commission on March 27 denied a major use permit for a two‑acre outdoor cannabis cultivation and proposed processing facility at 17870 Little High Valley Road after sustained concerns about private road access, emergency response standards and proximity to a registered home‑based school.","taxTitle","Lake County, California","taxId",17505,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6102575,"Planning commission revokes Pillsbury Family Farms permit after staff cites unlicensed cultivation and background‑check disqualification",1555,6208000,7763000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2803927-4c5d2c7ac10c54e3aa0e00732ddcb5d3&start=6208&end=7763","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2803927-4c5d2c7ac10c54e3aa0e00732ddcb5d3/thumbnail_6208000.jpg","/articles/6102575/Lake-County/California/Planning-commission-revokes-Pillsbury-Family-Farms-permit-after-staff-cites-unlicensed-cultivation-and-backgroundcheck-disqualification","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6102575-876cb8d83b1d96dcf0c7cdfd707c857d/orig.mp4?Expires=1773636155&Signature=mGR1L1~4LcOMdd20wr7DxB6t~UpGWAjiXlGPiiOjn6AEqs1Gy2JHD59izPB-4kho1m3MTEbKmm-Y8MzjF2j3DvGfv3iQG-rP5cbh9b1RcsmOsv32LRaWAgigQHJultJRfObphiVgQ25M1xQIyUFG-q6VXSdf376iVSI50jJRgfPLsKZ9npgPJpe4hD5JZQJo0eAnCQA78JdhVOTTDk7~ZOzUCKsCZio9WYwRBELWkQ-fPeXhpaa6NhjI8OBXRNCdW86N-PT5-yk8vERki7aczbsT45FuV-uO3xjEwxm3BYHRoTQcgk4tdBpyGk2Ws63f7xQzndxHvqNdNzSrsK1diw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lake County Planning Commission voted on March 27 to revoke Major Use Permit UP20‑50 for Pillsbury Family Farms at a Lake Pillsbury address after county staff concluded the permit conditions had been violated.

Community Development Director Marya Turner told the commission the revocation recommendation rests on two grounds: active cultivation in 2022 without a state license and the absence of a required county background‑check qualification for a listed permittee, Justin Quayle. Director Turner summarized the county’s review: the permit was approved in January 2022, the state acknowledged a complete application in August 2022 and later issued a state license, but county records contained no background‑check qualification report for Quayle when staff audited the file.

Turner said the county’s process requires live‑scan background checks routed through the sheriff’s office; the sheriff’s office then advises Community Development whether an applicant is qualified under county criteria (the sheriff provides the department a one‑page qualification/disqualification notice but does not release the underlying DOJ records to county staff). When Community Development asked the sheriff’s office to search their records, staff said no background‑check submission or qualification notice for Quayle was found in the period reviewed. The department issued a Notice of Intent recommending revocation and gave the permittees time to pursue resolution with the sheriff’s office; staff said it later received a sheriff’s report disqualifying Quayle.

At the hearing, Pillsbury representatives disputed the revocation grounds and said they had taken steps to comply. Skyla Lewa, who serves as Pillsbury Family Farms’ secretary and county liaison, said the business has an active state license (CCL22‑000141641) and that the farm has “maintained compliance.” She told the commission that Quayle had submitted a live scan after the county inquiry and that he was working with counsel to address the sheriff’s disqualification; Quayle said he is pursuing expungement proceedings and a court review and asked the county to allow time for the process. Quayle and the farm’s representatives said they are willing to pursue administrative or structural changes, including temporarily stepping back from operations, if that would resolve the county’s statutory concerns.

Public commenters’ views split. Supporters including a commercial breeder and a local contractor described Pillsbury as a law‑abiding local operation and warned that revocation invites litigation and harms a legal license holder. Other residents cited posts and past conduct they found troubling and told the commission the county should enforce its permit requirements.

After hearing staff, the permittees and public testimony, a commissioner moved to revoke UP20‑50 citing cultivation without a state license in 2022 and a background‑check disqualification for the permittee. The motion carried on a voice vote; the chair announced the motion passed and staff noted the standard seven‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.

What the county says next: The director’s memo attached to the staff report says staff had delayed the revocation recommendation to give the permittee time to pursue relief with the sheriff’s office and to allow counsel to respond. The revocation now advances to the county record and the permittee may file an appeal to the Board of Supervisors within seven calendar days.

","The Lake County Planning Commission revoked Major Use Permit UP20‑50 for Pillsbury Family Farms on March 27 after county staff said the operation cultivated in 2022 without a state license and a listed permittee failed to provide a qualifying county background‑check result.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lake County planning commission denies Little High Valley cannabis permit amid road, safety and school setback concerns

Planning commission revokes Pillsbury Family Farms permit after staff cites unlicensed cultivation and background‑check disqualification