The Lake County Planning Commission voted Jan. 8 to grant Major Use Permit PL25‑13 (UP21‑15) to Rancho Lake LLC for commercial cannabis cultivation of roughly 19.6 acres and an associated Type 13 distributor (self‑transport only), adopting the staff‑prepared mitigated negative declaration (IS21‑16). The motion passed 3–1 with one commissioner absent. Staff reminded the public there is a seven‑calendar‑day appeal window to the Board of Supervisors.

Mary Clavon, senior planner in the Community Development Department, reviewed the project's procedural history (the hearing had been continued multiple times) and summarized staff materials and attachments, including an engineered site plan and a hydrological analysis. Clavon said the irrigation well is located approximately 230 feet from the creek channel and that the applicant's hydrologist concluded the well's radius of influence would not directly affect streamflow at that distance. Clavon also summarized a green‑sheet comment from the Lake County Office of Emergency Services (Lake OES), which recommended on‑site preparedness measures and posting "Know Your Zone" evacuation information; staff offered a potential condition of approval to require those measures.

Public commenters and adjacent landowners, including Peter Luchetti, challenged the applicant's hydrology conclusions and urged a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis. Luchetti told the commission his own hydrological analysis contradicted the applicant's and that the applicant's odor and biological assessments were inadequate for a nearly 20‑acre operation. Charles Morris and other speakers raised broader regional water‑allocation concerns linked to historic litigation and urged greater scrutiny.

Trey Sherrill, consultant for the applicant, responded to technical questions: he said the well had a two‑hour completion test and two six‑hour pump tests at different capacities; the applicant argued those tests demonstrated adequate well performance for the project's projected peak water demand. Staff noted preconstruction biological surveys are required as mitigation (bio‑1 through bio‑5) and explained that CEQA traffic guidance screened the project from a formal traffic study because it would generate an estimated 24 daily vehicle trips, below typical VMT screening thresholds.

Commissioners debated setbacks, cumulative impacts (including nearby projects), the adequacy and seasonal timing of pump tests (several commissioners and commenters argued for longer tests during peak demand months), odor controls, and whether Grange Road can reliably function as an evacuation route under certain incidents. After discussion, the commission found the project's impacts could be mitigated to less‑than‑significant through the adopted mitigated negative declaration and approved the permit subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the January 8 memorandum. The record notes the Planning Commission considered and incorporated a recommended Lake OES condition about employee alert registration and Know Your Zone signage.

Affected neighbors or other interested parties may appeal the decision to the Board of Supervisors within seven calendar days, per the County zoning ordinance."