Lake County
  • Sign In

Meeting: Planning Commission on 2021-10-28 9:00 AM - The October 28, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting has been Adjourned.

Meeting Time: October 28, 2021 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

4 21-1095 9:20 A.M. Public Hearing to reconsider approving Use Permit UP 20-22. Applicant/Owner: WeGrow LLC / Zarina Otchkova. Proposed Project: Fifteen (15) A-Type 3B mixed light commercial cannabis cultivation licenses and one A-Type 13 'Self Distribution' license. The applicant is proposing thirty (32) 90' x 125' greenhouses; two (2) 90' x 125' greenhouses for immature plant starts; four (4) 50' x 100' drying buildings; one (1) 200 sq. ft. shed; twenty (20) 5,000 gallon water tanks; one (1) 6-foot tall galvanized woven wire fence covered with privacy mesh to screen the greenhouses from public view. Total proposed cultivation area is 387,600 sq. ft. (roughly 9 acres); total proposed canopy area is 330,000 sq. ft. The applicant is also proposing the removal of 100 blue oak trees, which will require a 3:1 tree replacement using similar species trees prior to the start of cultivation. Location: 16750 Herrington Road, Middletown, CA (cultivation site); 17610 Sandy Road, Middletown, CA and 19678 Stinson Road, Middletown, CA consisting of 309+ acres. (Eric Porter)

Legislation Text UP 20-22 SR V6 FINAL Attachment 1 vicinity map Attachment 2 PMP revised_2 Attachment 3a Original Agency Comments Attachment 3b Agency comments Attachment 3c Agency Comments new Attachment 3d agency comments new Attachment 3e agency comments new Attachment 4 COA 2 Attachment 5 current site plans Attachment 5b engineered Erosion plan Attachment 6a IS Addendum Attachment 6b memo to OPR Attachment 6c Geologic MM Attachment 7a Bio Rept Orig Attachment 8 Tree Plan Attachment 8b Tree Plan addendum Attachment 9 Water Analysis Attachment 10a public comments Orig Attachment 10b public comments Orig Attachment 10c letters Orig Attachment 10d public comments Orig Attachment 10e letter of support Attachment 11 Traffic Analysis Attachment 12 power memo Attachment 12a letter Attachment 12b Plan compliance
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
2500 of 2500 characters remaining
5 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Lisa Kaplan about 3 years ago

    The number of precious oak trees slated for removal (130 or 100 depending on the document), and related species that depend on them for habitat or sustenance that this project will impact is reason to deny the project or require an EIR. Saplings cannot provide as mature trees do. It will take years for them to mature while the ecosystem is deeply impacted.

    Meanwhile, the Cannabis market is already experiencing a glut and price drops.

    Is it wise and ecologically responsible and appropriate to sacrifice over 100 mature oak trees- jewels of Lake County's natural environment, for a business that may or my not thrive with the current glut in the market? So many mature oaks have already been lost to fires. And if the business does not thrive, we will not receive tax revenue. But the trees-- our local treasure will be gone.

    Also the scale of this project is industrial. It does not fit Middletown Area Plan guidance associated with the residential neighborhoods it will impact.

    Thank you

  • Default_avatar
    Sufyan Hamouda about 3 years ago

    Please see the attached letter of support on behalf of the applicant.

    Attachments: WeGrow_LLC_Public_Comment_Letter_10.26.21.pdf
  • Default_avatar
    Zarina Otchkova about 3 years ago

    Please see attached document

  • Default_avatar
    Donna Mackiewicz about 3 years ago

    I noticed recent comments/emails are not listed (TU 10/26) so I just wish to restate the opposition to UP 20-22 WeGrow cannabis application. We need to save our oaks and this is not a project for a thriving residential community with children. Thank you. Donna Mackiewicz, Lake County resident and Redbud Audubon volunteer

  • 2103328773197815
    Bobby Dutcher about 3 years ago

    This project is in complete compliance with Lake County's ordinance's and codes, I don't see how this project can be denied. A hydrology study was performed during the worst drought year we have ever had and adequate water is available. Despite qualifying for inexpensive outdoor cultivation, the applicant is using mixed light greenhouses which will greatly reduce the possibility of odor becoming a nuisance. Property has great access and power available, biological and arch studies were done by qualified experts, all of the requirements for a Use Permit have been met. I know there are neighbors opposed to this project, but I have yet to hear any opposition based on factual evidence. Property rights can not be reduced to a popularity contest. If that becomes the case, no one will want to invest in our community and our economy will slowly decay.