Planning commission approves Wellness Ranch major use permit and mitigated negative declaration for expanded cannabis operation

The Lake County Planning Commission on Nov. 13 approved a major use permit amendment and adopted a mitigated negative declaration for Wellness Ranch, a cannabis cultivation operation at 6751 Ridge Road, Lakeport (APN 007‑045‑16).

Mary Clabaughn, senior planner with the Community Development Department, presented the staff report and recommended adoption of Initial Study IS23‑19 and approval of the major use permit (PL25‑59 / UP23‑08) subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report dated Nov. 13, 2025. Staff summarized project scope (proposed expansion to a combined ~107,120 square feet of outdoor canopy and 8,820 square feet of indoor canopy, new processing and barn structures and water‑storage tanks), site conditions (150‑acre parcel in rural lands with B5 waterway combining district in the Kelseyville planning area), required setbacks from waterways, CEQA‑identified impact areas, tribal notification, and required mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Applicant consultant Richard Knoll and owner Luis Martinez described reductions made after neighbor input (a one‑acre decrease in outdoor canopy and a proposed vegetative buffer between cultivation and the nearest residence) and said the operator has a record of compliance under prior minor use permits. Knoll noted the project would use temporary shipping containers for processing during an initial stage then build a 2,500‑square‑foot ADA‑compliant processing facility; water‑storage and drought management plans were provided as attachments to staff's report.

Public comment included neighbors who supported the project with conditions. Longtime neighbor Tom Lasik described a site visit, urged protections for mature oak trees (avoid tilling and trenching within drip lines), requested best‑practice measures for wetland and pond setbacks and recommended that typical mitigation items be included clearly in the permit to ensure future owners follow them. Several speakers raised concerns about narrow sections of Highland Springs Road and Ridge Road access (private subdivision road maintenance) and recommended safety signage and county attention to collective impacts on rural roads. Staff said Highland Springs Road is county‑maintained up to the county line but that Ridge Road is an access road whose maintenance is the responsibility of property owners; the Lakeport Fire Protection District required a turnaround and revisions to site plans to meet PRC 4290 fire‑access standards.

Commissioners asked about hydrology and water use; staff and the applicant's hydrology consultant said wells and drought management measures were analyzed in the hydrology report and that additional monitoring or data could change recommendations if new information became available. The applicant stated he currently employs two people and the staff report estimated the operation might support up to four employees.

After discussion, Commissioner (speaker 8) moved that the Planning Commission find potential impacts could be mitigated to less than significant through IS23‑19 and adopt the initial study/mitigated negative declaration; Commissioner (speaker 2) seconded and the motion passed. Commissioner (speaker 8) then moved to grant the major use permit (PL2559 / UP2309 as recorded in the hearing) subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report; the motion was seconded and carried. Staff reminded attendees of a seven‑calendar‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.

The permit includes standard CEQA mitigation measures and the specific conditions listed in the staff report, plus the project's site plan adjustments (reduced outdoor canopy and vegetative buffer). Several neighbors and the applicant said they were willing to memorialize additional neighbor agreements privately, but staff noted the county cannot enforce third‑party private agreements; county conditions must have a clear nexus to code and mitigation requirements.

Next steps: the decision is subject to a seven‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors. If no appeal is filed the permit and MND will stand under the conditions adopted by the Planning Commission.

Sources: Planning Commission public hearing, Nov. 13, 2025; Mary Clabaughn, Senior Planner; Richard Knoll, applicant consultant; Tom Lasik, neighbor (public comment).