Board upholds Planning Commission denial of Nina Star Farms cannabis permit, cites water concerns

The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 April 1 to deny an appeal by Nina Star Farms and leave in place the Planning Commission’s December 2024 denial of a major use permit for commercial cannabis cultivation at 23180 Shady Grove Road in Middletown.

The appeal, filed by the applicant Nina Star LLC after the Planning Commission denied Major Use Permit UP 20‑14 and related environmental review, asked the board to overturn that denial. Senior Planner Mary Clabaughn told the board staff recommended granting the appeal because its December staff report and subsequent memorandum concluded the project met the county’s codified siting requirements and state cannabis regulations.

The board’s decision centered on unresolved questions about water supply and community impacts. Multiple supervisors and members of the public said the hydrology analysis submitted with the application did not demonstrate reliable, long‑term water availability for the proposed mixed‑light cultivation and that nearby domestic wells and creeks could be affected during dry months.

Opponents described a history of wells running dry in the area and submitted letters and testimony citing local water district concerns. Public commenters, including residents who live near Shady Grove Road, and organizations described visits where wells produced low flows, said some households haul water in summer, and urged the board to require more precise, drought‑period testing before allowing a commercial operation that could draw significant groundwater.

Representing the applicant, attorney Justin Ebelar argued the Community Development Department (CDD) and its reports demonstrated the project complied with the zoning ordinances, the Middletown area plan and CEQA. He said CDD staff had worked with the applicant over four years, addressed code enforcement issues on the parcel, and that objections raised at the planning commission hearing did not present new, substantiated evidence that would change staff findings.

Supervisors pressed staff and the applicant on multiple technical points: the number and status of temporary shipping containers on the site (residents and staff described two dozen or more containers used for storage), whether code enforcement and demolition permits issued earlier had addressed on‑site debris and trailers, and whether any shipping containers exceeded the scope of a demolition/zoning clearance. Staff said the demolition permit had cleared trailers and hazardous electrical and that shipping containers on the parcel had been treated as temporary storage; building permits would be required for permanent container uses.

The Board also discussed the content and qualifications of the hydrology report. Several supervisors said the report had been prepared by an engineering firm rather than a licensed hydrologist and did not test wells during summer/drought conditions when yield is lowest. Board members asked staff to consider requiring hydrology studies prepared or peer‑reviewed by licensed hydrologists in future permit work, a change staff said they would include in upcoming cannabis ordinance updates.

Public testimony included a range of environmental and community concerns: potential impacts to an unnamed on‑site creek and downstream fish habitat, wildfire and defensible‑space questions for buildings surrounded by screening vegetation, the project’s proximity to a county “Welcome to Lake County” sign along Highway 29 and the visibility from the scenic corridor, and the presence of school bus stops near the parcel. The applicant said the visible structure would be set back and designed to resemble a barn, that the greenhouses would be largely behind tree lines, and that odor, wastewater and light controls (including carbon filtration and blackout shades) were specified.

After discussion, county counsel recommended that, because the water‑supply issue had been raised and remained unresolved, the Board deny the appeal and direct staff to prepare findings supporting denial. The motion to deny the appeal passed 4–1. The board’s action keeps the Planning Commission’s denial in place and directs staff to prepare written findings of fact and decision reflecting the board’s stated basis for denial.

The County Clerk will post the board’s written findings within the time allowed under county rules. The applicant may pursue any further legal remedies provided under state law.