Board overturns Planning Commission approval after applicant withdraws Highland Farms use permit

The Lake County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 14 accepted the applicant's request to withdraw a major use permit for the Highland Farms project (UP 20-96) and, at the appellants' request, overturned the Planning Commission's earlier approval.

The applicant, Autumn Carsey of Highland Farms LP, submitted a written request to withdraw the major use permit and asked the board to accept that withdrawal. Appellants Tom Lasik and Margo Kambara had appealed the Planning Commission's approval and told the board they would not withdraw their appeal even if the application were withdrawn.

Why it matters: Appellants said the project's environmental review was flawed and warned a defective mitigated negative declaration (MND) could be used again. They pressed the board to overturn the Planning Commission's action so the record would show the approval had been rescinded rather than simply letting the application disappear. The board voted to overturn the commission's approval after accepting the applicant's withdrawal.

What the board heard: Maria Turner, director of Community Development, told supervisors staff had received a formal letter from the applicant the day before asking to withdraw the entire application. County counsel Lloyd Buendavano explained the board had discretion to accept the withdrawal and to decide whether a pending appeal should be heard on the merits or be treated as moot.

Appellants said they had identified what they called substantive errors in the application and environmental review and had invested months of time and expense preparing the appeal. Appellant Margo Kambara told the board the appeal was not an anti-cannabis position but a challenge to what she described as "bad planning, bad environmental review" and said the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians and local conservation groups supported the appeal.

Applicant's attorney James Anderson urged the board to accept the withdrawal and end the matter, saying in part: "By withdrawing the application, it moots this appeal." Autumn Carsey, the applicant, said the project had become "cannon fodder" in community debate and said she believed in the project's merits but wanted to withdraw.

Several community members and neighbors spoke in support of the appellants and asked the board to hear the merits before taking final action. Tom Lasik said appellants had worked for months and wanted the board to formally record reasons for denying the earlier approval in the public record so those issues would be available if similar projects resubmitted.

Board decision: After discussion, supervisors voted to accept the applicant's withdrawal and to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of the major use permit in light of that withdrawal. The board directed staff to prepare findings documenting the action. The motion to overturn passed with a recorded vote of 5-0.

What happens now: County staff noted the applicant may reapply; a new application would start the land-use review process anew and, according to staff, would be subject to CEQA and standard permit processing. County counsel and Community Development staff said the prior record would remain part of the administrative history but that a fresh application would be considered on its own merits and would follow current CEQA standards.

Background and key details: The appeal concerned a proposed cultivation operation and included public comments from neighboring property owners and tribal and conservation groups raising environmental and procedural concerns. Appellants asked the board to overturn the decision so the Planning Commission's approval and the associated MND could not be used as a precedent or relied on in future filings. The applicant indicated it would resubmit only if circumstances warranted.

Next steps: Staff will prepare the written findings of fact and a formal decision for the board to sign and will file any required administrative notices. If the applicant refiles, the county said it will treat that as a new project and perform any required environmental review and public notice.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the public record of the Jan. 14, 2025 meeting of the Lake County Board of Supervisors.