Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Permits topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board continues revocation review for Highway 36 cultivation permit, orders cleanup or return

Humboldt County Board of Supervisors · March 27, 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 Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing on revoking a conditional use permit for mixed‑light and outdoor cannabis cultivation at a Highway 36 property, expressed concern about due process and abandoned sites countywide, and directed staff to return in 30 days (April 23) or the next available meeting for revocation if the property is not cleaned up.

EUREKA — The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors opened a public hearing to consider revoking a conditional use permit for a cultivation site located on Highway 36 after planning staff said the property had not responded to notices and did not appear in compliance.

Planning and Building Director John Ford told the board staff was reluctant to proceed immediately with revocation because the county might not have provided adequate notice; he recommended continuing the item so that the owner could be properly informed and afforded due process. Board members and public commenters used the hearing to flag a broader pattern of abandoned or unsafe cultivation sites and asked staff to return with a programmatic approach to manage multiple properties and clear a backlog of code‑enforcement cases.

Public commenters and supervisors urged a 30‑day timeline for cleanup and suggested working with local growers and organizations to facilitate abatement and transfer of properties back to productive use. After discussion the board moved to return the revocation item on April 23 (noting calendar constraints that might push some administrative steps to May 7) and to proceed with revocation if the property remained noncompliant.

Director Ford clarified the property does not have a state license and that the current owner was the original applicant; staff will continue outreach and return with a report including any required code‑enforcement steps. No revocation was finalized at the hearing.