Lake County supervisors accept Highland Farms withdrawal, overturn Planning Commission approval of UP 20-96

The Lake County Board of Supervisors accepted on a 5-0 vote the applicant’s request to withdraw Major Use Permit UP 20-96 for Highland Farms and moved to overturn the Planning Commission’s earlier approval, directing staff to prepare written findings.

The action resolved an appeal (AB 24-02) of the Planning Commission decision on a project proposed near Highland Springs Recreation Area in the Lakeport area. Maria Turner, Director of Community Development, told the board the county had “received a letter of request for withdrawal from the applicant of the major use permit” and that the applicant asked to withdraw the entire project.

The withdrawal prompted a dispute over how the board should proceed. Appellants said they still wanted the board to rule on the merits so the record would reflect their concerns; the applicant’s counsel argued there was nothing left for the board to decide. James Anderson, attorney for the applicant, said, “the project's been withdrawn now. There is nothing for the board to hear.” Autumn Carsey, the applicant, told supervisors the project had “become cannon fodder for the appellant's hatred of cannabis in their community” and said she supported withdrawal.

Appellants and members of the public urged supervisors to hear their evidence or to overturn the Planning Commission’s approval so the mitigated negative declaration would not stand as adopted. Tom Lasik, who identified himself as an appellant and a citizen, said, “We are here because we haven't been heard.” Appellant Margo Kambara said, “This appeal is not a case of not in my backyard. This appeal is about bad planning, bad environmental review.” Supporters of the appeal warned that leaving the Planning Commission’s approval intact could allow the same environmental finding to be reused in future applications.

County counsel and staff explained the options. Counsel noted that accepting the applicant’s withdrawal would not automatically resolve the pending appeal if the appellants chose not to withdraw their appeal; conversely, if the appellants withdrew, there would be no appeal to decide. Supervisors debated whether to allow an evidentiary presentation by the appellants, continue the matter to a date certain so the applicant could respond, or accept the withdrawal and overturn the Planning Commission’s decision for the record.

After public comment, which included statements from neighborhood residents, representatives of local organizations and a consultant for the applicant, Supervisor [name not specified] moved to overturn the Planning Commission’s decision on UP 20-96 in light of the application withdrawal and to direct staff to prepare findings. The board voted “Aye” on the motion; no supervisors opposed and the clerk announced the motion carried 5-0.

The board’s motion directs staff to draft the formal findings that implement the supervisors’ action. County staff indicated that because the applicant withdrew the use permit application, the applicant remains free to reapply in the future and that any new application would proceed as a new project under CEQA and county zoning procedures.

The decision concluded the appeal item on the agenda and the board moved to the next matter.