Board of Supervisors denies appeal of Nina Star Farms cannabis permit amid water concerns

Lake County supervisors on April 1 denied an appeal by Nina Star Farms LLC of the Planning Commission’s December 2024 denial of a major use permit for commercial cannabis cultivation at 23180 Shady Grove Road in Middletown.

The vote, 4-1, leaves the Planning Commission decision intact and followed extended public comment and questions from supervisors about groundwater availability, downstream creek impacts and the site’s visibility from State Highway 29. County staff had recommended the board grant the appeal, saying the project met county zoning and state regulatory requirements.

The project as applied sought two mixed-light cultivation licenses with 37,446 square feet of canopy within a 48,529-square-foot cultivation area and a self-distribution license. Senior planner Mary Clabaughn told the board that a four-year application and review process showed the proposal met the technical requirements in the county’s zoning ordinance and related regulations; she said, “Staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve the appeal…and approve the initial study.” Attorney Justin Ebelar, representing the applicant, argued the project complied with the zoning code and that the planning commission’s decision lacked “substantial evidence.”

Neighbors and several members of the public urged the board to uphold the planning commission. Speakers cited repeated local accounts of wells running dry, seasonal variation in well yields, and localized water shortages; concerns about the proximity to a Welcome-to-Lake-County sign and the county’s scenic corridor; fire risk for structures surrounded by vegetation; and increases in heavy equipment and shipping containers on the parcel. Public commenter Margo Kambara told supervisors, “The planning commission ruled correctly,” and cited what she called incomplete hydrology data and potential CEQA thresholds.

County staff and the applicant said the California Department of Fish and Wildlife had been notified and did not submit adverse comments, and that demolition and site-cleanup permits were finalized in July 2024. Staff also noted that a hydrology report was submitted as part of the application; the consultant’s March 2020 test recorded about 16 gallons per minute at a shallow well during a wetter month, and neighboring wells have produced widely varying yields in prior years. Several supervisors said those hydrology data did not answer how the project would affect neighbors’ wells or creek flows in dry months.

After discussion, County Counsel advised that the board could deny the appeal based on concerns documented under the staff report’s suggested findings — specifically referencing water supply and hydrology issues noted on page 23 of the December 2024 staff report — and direct staff to prepare formal findings. The motion to deny the appeal passed 4-1. The board instructed staff to draft findings and a decision for a future formal resolution; county staff said a draft of findings would be prepared in accordance with the board’s direction.

The applicant’s permit remains denied unless the applicant pursues other legal remedies. No changes to the county zoning ordinance or new countywide hydrology standards were made during the meeting.