Planning commission revokes Pillsbury Family Farms cannabis permit over 2022 unlicensed cultivation and background-check issues

The Lake County Planning Commission voted on March 27 to revoke Major Use Permit UP 20-50 for Pillsbury Family Farms, concluding the permittees had not met county conditions related to state licensure and background-check qualification.

Community Development Director Marya Turner told the commission the revocation recommendation rests on two grounds: cultivation without a state license in 2022 and the failure of a named permittee to show a completed, qualifying county background check. Turner said staff could find qualification records for two permit holders but not for the third, and that a search of Sheriff’s Office records turned up no live-scan submission for that person at the expected time. The department sent a Notice of Intent to recommend revocation and later received a live-scan application; the Sheriff’s Office ultimately returned a report disqualifying that permittee.

Representatives of Pillsbury Family Farms disputed the timing and the characterization. Secretary and farm manager Skyla Lewa told commissioners the farm holds an active state cultivation license (CCL 22000141641) and said the team had been transparent: "Since being issued our state license, we have maintained compliancy," Lewa said. Farm co-owner and permittee Justin Quayle addressed the commission and explained he is pursuing expungement and other legal remedies to clear his record; he asked the commission to allow administrative options (such as a temporary removal of an owner from the permitted entity) rather than immediate revocation.

Attorney John Phillips, representing Pillsbury, warned the county that revocation could prompt litigation, argued that permit conditions track property impacts rather than personal histories, and said the company has been compliant with state requirements since its license was issued. Public commenters offered contrasting positions: several neighbors urged enforcement, while outside supporters and a contractor who works with the farm urged leniency and noted the farm’s local economic activity.

After staff presentations and public comment, a commissioner moved to revoke UP 20-50 on the bases articulated in the staff report; the motion carried. The commission noted a seven-calendar-day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.

Ending: The revocation will be recorded and staff will notify the permittees of appeal procedures. The ruling leaves open the possibility of appeal and separate administrative steps under state and county rules; the revocation does not itself prohibit future licensure steps by the operators in other forms or entities.