Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Permits topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves five interrelated cannabis permits in New Harris area
Summary
The commission approved four conditional‑use permits and one special permit for five cultivation sites in New Harris that share rainwater catchment ponds and a processing location, adding a condition linking processing to completion of preexisting permitting requirements.
The Humboldt County Planning Commission approved four conditional‑use permits and one special permit for five cannabis cultivation projects in the New Harris area, projects that staff said are interrelated by shared irrigation ponds and a shared processing location.
“Here are the five projects — they share an irrigation system, the three rainwater ponds that make up the backbone of the irrigation system, and they all process their harvested cannabis on the same parcel,” Senior Planner Steven Santos told the commission during the staff presentation. Santos said the parcels share water infrastructure and that one parcel already has an approved processing structure; the other permits were conditioned to prevent processing on adjacent parcels until the processing parcel’s existing conditions are satisfied.
Santos summarized the five applications (project numbers 13336, 13337, 13367, 13365 and 13374) and recommended adding a condition to four of the projects to match language included in the supplemental materials for the project that required the processing site to meet its previously approved conditions before any processing occurs on the shared parcel. One of the five (13336) was processed under a different chapter of the county cannabis code because it converts existing outdoor to mixed‑light cultivation and it was the only parcel referred to BLM, which raised northern spotted owl habitat concerns; the applicant supplied a registered professional forester’s documentation and the county determined the closest cultivation areas are at least 900 feet from BLM land and beyond the county’s 600‑foot threshold.
Staff reported no written public comment on the cluster of projects and the applicant’s representative told the commission they were available if commissioners had questions. The permits include standard conditions that require a transition away from generators to renewable energy or PG&E service; staff said if documentation shows a parcel has PG&E service the condition can be satisfied.
A commissioner asked staff to correct a square‑footage typo in one draft resolution prior to finalization; staff acknowledged the error. The commission approved all five projects together and included staff’s recommended additional condition consistent with the supplemental documents.
The permits were approved on a voice vote with no roll‑call tally recorded in the meeting minutes. The approvals include conditions addressing wastewater, power, groundwater and easements for shared irrigation infrastructure; the processing facility already has conditions that must be satisfied before processing can occur.
The projects’ files reference county environmental documents: a final environmental impact report for the project approved under the county’s CCLUO chapter and MND/addenda for the projects under the other chapter. The approvals require applicants to satisfy standard permitting conditions and to demonstrate compliance with energy and wastewater conditions before operation begins.
