Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use.cannabis topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Clear Lake planning commission approves amended entitlements for 2160 Old Highway 53 cannabis facility amid water-use questions

City of Clear Lake Planning Commission · July 9, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Planning Commission unanimously approved amendments to a previously authorized commercial cannabis project at 2160 Old Highway 53 that restore indoor cultivation and update building footprints after staff said existing CEQA analysis covers the change; residents and commissioners pressed for more groundwater monitoring and cumulative-impact analysis.

The Clear Lake Planning Commission on July 9 adopted Resolution PC 2024-01 approving amendments to entitlements for a commercial cannabis operation at 2160 Old Highway 53 (APN 010-040-21), including a revised site plan that adds two new buildings and indoor cultivation.

The decision followed a staff presentation explaining that an environmental analysis circulated in 2022 included evaluation of cultivation and water use and that, under CEQA, recirculation was not required because the current proposal did not introduce new impacts beyond those already analyzed. Staff described the revised project as Building A (about 32,500 square feet, with processing/manufacturing and 9,000 square feet of indoor cultivation and nursery) and Building B (about 5,000 square feet with processing, distribution and retail/delivery offices). Planned hours are Monday–Saturday, 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.; site access will be via a new driveway with roughly 40 parking spaces noted in staff materials.

Neighbors and groundwater advocates urged deeper analysis. Dave Hughes, representing roughly 30 property owners in the Burns Valley watershed, told the commission many nearby wells are shallow and said independent hydrogeologic review of a neighboring parcel had led county supervisors to require an environmental impact report. Hughes summarized findings from a consultant who concluded the applicant’s groundwater evaluation and pump testing were inadequate and that cumulative impacts of multiple cannabis grows in the area had not been sufficiently addressed.

Applicant representatives and technical consultants disputed that the project would harm water supplies. Planning consultant Richard Knoll said the project submitted multiple hydrology memoranda, groundwater analyses and a water-availability report and noted the initial study circulated in 2022 found no significant impacts in the categories analyzed. Knoll cited a technical memorandum by hydrologist Dr. Angie Dodd (Northpointe Consulting Group) concluding the cannabis demand would be about 0.12% of usable storage in the Burns Valley Groundwater Basin and that recharge is sufficient to meet demand in both average and dry years.

Applicant principal Brian Pensac told the commission the indoor cultivation proposed would use about 50% less water than the originally proposed outdoor greenhouses because of recirculation; that figure was offered orally during the hearing as the applicant answered commissioner questions.

Commissioners pressed staff and the applicant on monitoring. Vice Chair Stewart and others asked whether a prior water-use cap (561,000 gallons per year, cited from earlier materials) still applied and whether meters and monitoring would be required; staff said monitoring conditions were part of permit conditions for related projects and staff would confirm the specific requirements. The commission discussed that the previously approved environmental document analyzed a larger scope in some respects, and staff said the commission’s discretionary options under CEQA are limited unless new substantial evidence of changed impacts is presented.

After deliberation, Commissioner English moved to adopt Resolution PC 2024-01; Commissioner Smalley seconded. The roll-call vote recorded Smalley, Inglis, Vice Chair Stewart and Chair Williams as voting Aye; the motion passed unanimously.

The commission’s approval updates conditions of approval and recognizes the revised site layout and building program; staff indicated the approval remains subject to the adopted mitigation measures and permit conditions described in the record. Commissioners requested staff follow up on water-monitoring details and whether specific meter or reporting requirements apply to the approved project.

The action advances the project’s entitlement status but does not itself authorize construction beyond compliance with conditions of approval and any other required permits. Further administrative or ministerial permits (for grading, building and water connections) will be required before construction and operation.