Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Bioenergy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County board continues hearing on biomass facility appeal amid state review of lease compatibility
Summary
The Lake County Board of Supervisors on June 17 continued a public hearing on an appeal of a major use permit for an ag-forest wood-processing bioenergy project, citing outstanding state review about whether leasing county-owned, bond-funded flood corridor land to a private company would be compatible with the bond terms.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2025, continued a public hearing on appeal PL25-22AB2406 of the Planning Commission’s approval of major use permit UP23-05 and initial study IS23-10 for an ag-forest wood-processing bioenergy project at APN 00401004 in Upper Lake, setting the next hearing for Aug. 26 at 9:30 a.m.
The board postponed the matter after staff and public commenters said the Department of Water Resources (DWR) is coordinating with the state controller’s office to determine whether leasing the parcel — which DWR reimbursed the county for under the flood corridor program using bond funds — would be compatible with the bond source language. Mireya Turner, Lake County community development director, asked for a continuance while the county awaits that state guidance.
The continuance matters because DWR’s letter, read into the record by resident Tara Morris, said the department reimbursed Lake County for the purchase of parcel APN 00401004 under the flood corridor program using bond funds and that “the lease of this property to a private entity is likely not compatible with the bond source language and may create a tax issue.” The letter, signed by Elizabeth Bison, professional engineer and manager of the Flood Financial Assistance Section, said DWR will likely need additional time and may not receive clarification from the state controller’s office until later in the summer.
Public commenters, including neighbors and the appellant’s counsel, urged the board not to continue the hearing to a date certain unless the county had reasonable confidence the state would respond in time. Barbara Morris asked the board to postpone “until those matters are clear,” saying repeated continuances create hardship for residents who must travel or arrange childcare. Tom Lasik said a date-uncertain continuance would avoid repeatedly requiring neighbors to appear if the state response is not imminent.
Marsha Birch, attorney for appellant Larry Khan and other neighbors, told the board she believed it would be unproductive to repeatedly continue hearings without a definitive response from DWR and the state controller’s office and said re-noticing the item would be appropriate under the circumstances.
Staff initially proposed a continuance to July 22 at 10:00 a.m. but noted the county could notify parties by a 15-day agenda deadline if the state response had not arrived. After discussion among supervisors about the timing and the possibility the state reply could take longer, the board voted to continue the hearing to Aug. 26 at 9:30 a.m. Supervisor Sabatier moved to continue the hearing to that date and time; Supervisor Owen seconded. The motion passed after an oral vote of “aye”; no oppositions were recorded on the public audio record.
No final decision was made on the appeal or on the underlying permit during the meeting; the action taken was solely to continue the public hearing. Staff said it would notify the appellant and permittee in advance through the county’s agenda/notification process if the state response was not available by the agenda deadline.
Background: The appeal (PL25-22AB2406) challenges the Planning Commission’s approval of major use permit UP23-05 and associated initial study IS23-10 for a proposed ag-forest wood-processing bioenergy project located at 675/755 E. Highway 20 (APN 00401004) in Upper Lake. The Department of Water Resources reimbursed Lake County for the parcel under the flood corridor bond-funded program; DWR’s letter indicates the department must coordinate with the state controller’s office to determine whether a private lease of the parcel would be compatible with bond restrictions. The transcript record shows county staff and several members of the public pressed for clarity from the state before the board proceeds to a substantive hearing or decision.
The board will reconvene the hearing on Aug. 26, 2025, at 9:30 a.m., unless staff notifies parties earlier that the matter will be continued again due to pending state guidance.
