Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board accepts withdrawal of Highland Farms permit and overturns Planning Commission approval
Summary
The Board of Supervisors accepted the applicant—s withdrawal of a major use permit for the Highland Farms cannabis project and voted to overturn the Planning Commission—s prior approval, effectively nullifying the earlier decision.
The Board of Supervisors accepted a last-minute written withdrawal of a major use permit application for the Highland Farms project (UP 20-96) and, after hearing appellants and members of the public, voted to overturn the Planning Commission—s earlier approval.
Background: The Highland Farms application had previously been approved by the Planning Commission and was the subject of an appeal to the Board. Late on Jan. 13 the applicant submitted a written request to withdraw the major use permit. The Board followed county procedure by considering whether the appellants would also withdraw their appeal or whether the Board should act on the appeal despite the withdrawal of the underlying application.
Appellants Tom Lasik and Margo Cambara told the board they wanted the appeal heard on the merits and requested that the Planning Commission—s decision be overturned; they argued the environmental review (a mitigated negative declaration) was deficient and that the project threatened the Highland Springs Recreation Area and cultural resources. Appellants also said they had invested months and legal fees in the appeal.
After deliberation the Board accepted the applicant—s withdrawal of the permit and, citing procedural options presented by County Counsel and staff, moved to overturn the Planning Commission—s approval of the use permit so the record would reflect a nullified approval in light of the withdrawal. The motion to overturn the Planning Commission—s decision passed; staff were directed to prepare findings of fact reflecting that action.
Why it matters: The decision resolves this appeal without the Board taking new environmental findings on the project—s merits. The Board—s overturning of the Planning Commission approval in light of the withdrawal removes the current approval from the county record and means any future application for a similar project would be processed as a new application (and would carry the county—s standard environmental review obligations). Appellants said they would prefer the Board to rule on substantive concerns, but the Board chose the procedural route.
What to watch: If the applicant re-files or a similar project is submitted, the Board indicated that the new filing will be treated as a new permit application subject to CEQA and the county—s current rules. The appellants and community groups may pursue further administrative or legal avenues if they disagree with the Board—s procedural approach.
Provenance: Board discussion and public comment on Jan. 14, 2025.
