Agenda Item

3 21-519 9:15 a.m. Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the closure of a Major Use Permit file (UP 19-12). . Applicant: Pura Vida International, LLC. Owner: George Mainas. Proposed Project: One (1) A-Type 2 small outdoor cannabis cultivation license requesting 10,000 sq. ft. of cannabis cultivation area and one (1) A-Type 13 self-distribution license to transport cannabis to and from the site. Location: 18086 Dam Road, Clearlake, CA; APN: 010-013-29. Environmental Evaluation: Initial Study IS 19-24.

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
2500 of 2500 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Harris Emran about 3 years ago

    I represent Clearlake Development Group, LLC, the property owner's of 18086 Dam Road. Pura Vida International, LLC (The Appellant), should be denied a Use Permit because they do not have an ownership nor a possessory interest in the property in question. Lake County Zoning Ordinance, Article 27, Subsection (at)(i) states "If the property where the cannabis activity is to be located is not owned by the applicant written approval shall be obtained from the property owner, containing the property owner(s) notarized signature... written approvals shall be renewed annually." The property owner's have not approved of any such use this calendar year and will not renew any prior approvals. The Appellant's lease on the property expired on December 31, 2020 and the owners of the property have no intention of renewing its lease with the Appellant. The Appellant has no right to occupy the premises and therefore should be denied the Use Permit.

  • Default_avatar
    Robert Molineaux about 3 years ago

    This comment is on behalf of the owner of the neighboring property to 18086 Dam Road. I believe Pura Vida International, LLC (the applicant) should be denied the Use Permit for 2 reasons: First, because the applicant plans to make extensive commercial use of an undeveloped dirt road in order to access the site. Not only is there no recorded easement on any of the parcels, which it crosses to reach the site, but the road itself is not ready for this type of extensive use. Section 3.ii.(p)(1) of the County Cultivation Ordinance requires a recorded easement or public road access for Cannabis Operations this site lacks both. The second reason is because of the applicant’s prior conduct. During the 2020 season the applicant’s staff trespassed on our property- going so far as to camp out, set fires and leave piles of garbage around. Cannabis or not, these business practices are not consistent with mainstream legal agriculture and should not be legitimized by the county.