Planning commission continues appeal of cannabis license amid disputed well location and water tests

The Trinity County Planning Commission on March 13 continued to its April 24 meeting an appeal of a director's decision to issue a commercial cannabis cultivation license for project P‑24‑12 (CCL 803), after commissioners and staff identified unresolved questions about the water source and a civil dispute over whether a historic well lies on adjacent Sierra Pacific Industries land.

Drew Pilbani, Trinity County cannabis division director, said the application was approved on Aug. 16, 2024, after a 10‑day appeal period, and that an appeal had been filed before license issuance. Pilbani summarized the original six reasons listed in the appeal and staff responses, including staff’s position that several complaints raised by the Little Brown's Creek Road Improvement Association are civil matters outside the cannabis division’s jurisdiction. Pilbani said additional reasons for appeal were filed after the original 10‑day period and that staff had not responded to those late items but would discuss them if the commission requested.

The appeal centers on whether the applicant has a lawful on‑site water source sufficient for commercial cultivation. Pilbani told the commission the county’s minimum well production requirement is 3 gallons per minute and that an older well completion report estimated production at 4 gallons per minute. The applicant’s representative said a recent pump test on a 1977 well produced about “5 gallons a minute.” Environmental Health Director Christy Anderson told the commission the required well rate recovery test for the 1977 well had not yet been submitted to the county and that pre‑1989 well completion reports can be generalized and require verification.

Bob Morris, speaking for the Little Brown's Creek Road Improvement Association, urged the commission to consider that the historic well “is proven to not be producing in a dry year,” and said neighbors had voted to oppose commercial cannabis within association boundaries. Sierra Pacific Industries district manager Keith Greenwood urged the commission not to rely on approvals issued “based upon inaccurate information” and said SPI had offered a domestic license to the prior owner when their records showed the well on SPI land.

Applicant’s counsel (Tom Polanco/Belanco) said a pump test on Feb. 28 produced about 5 gallons per minute and that the applicant intends to include the 1977 well in the site plan; he said the applicant also has two 2,500‑gallon storage tanks on the parcel and that storage tanks are not currently required by Trinity County code. Lisa Wright, a nearby resident who said she represents District 1, supported upholding the director’s decision and told the commission that the appellant had not submitted evidence to substantiate the late appeal items.

County Counsel Sean Cameron and staff advised that disputes about well ownership and property boundaries are civil matters that would generally require a court determination to amend county records. Commissioners expressed concern about last‑minute submittals, ambiguity about “on‑site” definitions, and whether the 1977 well had been finaled and tested for summer (dry‑season) production. Environmental Health said the well permit finalization and documentation, if complete, would typically be processed in roughly two weeks but that some pre‑1989 records require extra verification.

After debate, the commission first moved to continue the item to a date uncertain to allow staff and the parties to resolve outstanding items, and then voted (4‑0) on a subsequent motion to continue the appeal to the Planning Commission meeting on April 24, with staff instructed to provide verification that the applicant has a permitted, functioning well (or to return even if the documentation is not yet supplied). Chair Barrett announced the vote as “4‑0 for the subsequent motion to continue the item till April 24.”