Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission approves Osprey Farm cannabis permit over neighbor objections; 3–2 votes
Summary
The Planning Commission approved Major Use Permit PL-25-354 for Osprey Farm (approx. 89,620 sq ft outdoor canopy/2.06 acres) and adopted a mitigated negative declaration with conditions after staff recommended approval. Neighbors raised concerns about odor, water use and fire access; the commission approved the permit by a 3–2 vote with a seven‑day appeal period.
The Lake County Planning Commission on April 9 approved a major use permit for Osprey Farm (PL‑25‑354), a proposed outdoor commercial cannabis operation on two parcels near Kelseyville. Senior Planner Mary Claybon presented staff’s recommendation to adopt a mitigated negative declaration and grant the permit with conditions that include mitigation measures for hydrology, odor notification and monitoring, public‑notice requirements, and annual compliance monitoring.
What was proposed: The applicant, Alfred (Al) Fontana, proposed 89,620 square feet of outdoor commercial cannabis canopy (about 2.06 acres) in a predisturbed vineyard area, three greenhouse structures for immature plants, a Type 13 self‑distribution transport license (transport only), interior roadway upgrades, security fencing and nine parking spaces. The project footprint is sited outside a 1,000‑foot farmland‑protection buffer and staff reported the nearest off‑site residence would be about 200 feet from the cultivation fence line.
Key evidence and mitigations: Consultant reports submitted with the application included a hydrology/ordinance 3106 analysis, a property‑management plan that outlines an odor‑complaint notification process, and measures for water storage and fire suppression (including NFPA‑standard fire‑water tanks). Staff also recommended conditions requiring water‑use monitoring and annual reporting, and mitigation for biological and cultural resources as specified in the draft mitigated negative declaration.
Public concerns: Multiple neighbors and stakeholders urged caution. Concerns included the smell of mature cannabis during harvest (neighbors said a 200‑foot offset would still allow significant odor), potential impacts on domestic wells and groundwater, road access and 4290 fire‑access compliance, tribal cultural resources and ongoing enforcement if operations later fell out of compliance.
Applicant response: Applicant Al Fontana and consultant Angie Dodd said the operation would be organic/regenerative, would reuse vineyard infrastructure, and would retain and reinforce vegetative buffers to reduce off‑site odor. The operator offered to work directly with adjoining property owners on mitigation (planting aromatic buffers, additional screening) and to use monitoring/escalation measures listed in the operating plan.
Commission action: After staff presentation, public testimony and commissioner questions, the Planning Commission first adopted the mitigated negative declaration and then approved the major use permit on motions recorded April 9. Both measures passed 3–2. The commission chair reminded the public of a seven‑calendar‑day appeal period to the Board of Supervisors.
What to watch: Conditions added at the hearing require groundwater monitoring and reporting, a required fire‑water connection meeting NFPA requirements, and a property‑owner notification program for complaints. Annual compliance site visits are required by department practice; staff emphasized they will monitor complaints and follow up. Neighbors may pursue appeals or administrative remedies during the county’s appeal window.
Ending: The approval is effective pending any timely appeal to the Board of Supervisors. The department will track mitigation compliance through required reports and site visits.
