Planning commission continues decision on Little High Valley cannabis permit after neighbors raise grading, easement and water concerns

The Lake County Planning Commission on Feb. 13 continued public hearing UP21-07, Little High Valley, a major use permit application for two Type 3 outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation licenses (87,120 square feet of canopy within a 90,620-square-foot cultivation area) and one Type 13 self-distribution (transport only) license at 17870 Little High Valley Road, to March 27, 2025.

Why it matters: The application provoked sustained public comment and technical questions about whether site work had been performed without required grading permits, whether the only access to the parcel crosses other private properties whose owners have not granted permission for commercial cannabis operations, and whether local wells and biological resources could be harmed. Staff recommended adopting a mitigated negative declaration and approving the permit with conditions; the commission moved to continue the item to allow legal and factual issues to be resolved.

Planning staff presented the project scope, site constraints and environmental review. Planning staff summarized the proposal as including two acres of outdoor canopy, a 3,500-square-foot processing building with ADA restroom for drying and storage, four 2,500-gallon irrigation tanks, a 5,000-gallon water tank with a 2½-inch quick coupling for fire suppression, and an eight-space employee parking area (including one ADA space). The parcel is roughly 78.38 acres in the Lower Lake planning area and is zoned rural lands within Supervisorial District 1. Staff said the project’s initial study identified potential impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, noise and wildfire; staff concluded those impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation and recommended adoption of IS-21-07 (mitigated negative declaration) and approval of UP21-07 subject to conditions in the staff report.

Neighbors and other speakers told the commission they had concerns in four areas that the commission said needed clarification before a final decision: - Grading and clearing: Public speakers and a consulting engineer cited satellite imagery and field photos they said show recent clearing and mechanized grading not disclosed in project documents. Planning staff said the county’s grading and stormwater inspector visited the property (inspection report in staff attachment 11) and found no Chapter 30 grading violations; staff reported interviews with the property owner and project manager that earlier clearing documented in county files dated to removal of debris and the installation of a permitted well, and that County zoning clearance ZC25-04 was issued Jan. 15, 2025 for the well installation. - Access and easement permission: Several neighbors and a county attorney reference to a recent appellate decision (cited in the hearing as JCC Crandall v. County of Santa Barbara) raised a legal question: whether a commercial cannabis operation must have the permission of every underlying property owner whose parcels (or easements across those parcels) are used to access the cultivation site. County counsel told the commission that the recent case has been interpreted to require property-owner permission for every parcel through which the project’s access runs; commissioners flagged that if permission cannot be obtained, the current access route may not qualify for cannabis cultivation and transport operations. - Water supply and neighboring wells: Neighbors reported at least one, and by some statements two, local wells that ran dry in recent drought years. The applicant and project manager presented well information: applicant Mark McDonald said he installed a “very good well, 400 gallons a minute,” and project manager Travis Lisenby described the well as high-capacity and said he has supplied neighbors in past drought years. A local well driller who spoke to the commission said volcanic geology in the area typically yields sustained well production. Commissioners asked staff to document the hydrology analysis and confirm whether nearby wells were considered in the hydrology study. - Biological and CEQA concerns: Several public speakers, including consulting engineer Brian Hall (letter referenced in the record) and Donna Makowicz (Redwood/“Red Red” Audubon in the transcription), urged a new multi‑season biological survey and questioned whether the 2020 biological assessment (performed during drought conditions) accurately reflects current conditions. Staff summarized that the biological assessment (Attachment 6) reported vegetation regrowth in previously cleared areas and did not document special-status species; staff included mitigation measures in the proposed mitigated negative declaration.

Speakers and roles: Mark McDonald, the applicant and owner of Inland Properties, spoke for the project and asked for approval; Travis Lisenby, project manager, answered technical questions about planting density, water and road maintenance; Trey Sherrill, consultant to the applicant, reviewed the application timeline and responses to earlier continuance questions; multiple neighbors spoke in opposition (Joni Henderson, Bill Landers, Maria Khan, and others), citing grading, road width, fire evacuation and easement issues; Donna Makowicz (conservation commenter) raised biological concerns. County staff presented the project and referred to inspection reports, the issued zoning clearance ZC25-04 (1/15/2025), and the initial study (IS-21-07). County counsel clarified how a recent appellate decision affects property-owner permission for easements used by cannabis operations.

Commission action: A motion to continue the public hearing was made and seconded; the commission approved the continuance to March 27, 2025, at 9:05 a.m. with the instruction that staff and applicants review the legal questions about easement permission, provide documentation on grading and the zoning clearance, and clarify the hydrology/well analyses and any additional biological survey needs.

What remains unresolved: The commission did not make final findings on the mitigated negative declaration or the use permit. Key outstanding items are (1) whether the currently asserted access easement provides lawful permission for commercial cannabis cultivation and transport given the recent appellate interpretation, (2) whether the county’s grading inspections and the issued zoning clearance fully address neighbors’ claims of unpermitted clearing, (3) whether the hydrology analysis adequately considered nearby wells, and (4) whether a new biological field survey is needed to support CEQA analysis.

Votes at a glance: The commission voted to continue UP21-07 to March 27, 2025 at 9:05 a.m. (motion passed; no recorded nay votes).