3 21-1262 9:15 a.m. Public hearing on consideration of a Major Use Permit (UP 20-68) and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 20-83). The project applicant is Cristhian Hernandez Rodriguez, is proposing a two-acre outdoor canopy area within 170, 730 square feet cultivation area to include twelve shipping containers with a total of 4,000 square feet solar panels and eight outdoor drying tents on existing agricultural land. The project is located at 2000 Clover Valley Road, Upper Lake, CA; and further described as APN(s): 004-007-25.
It has come to my attention that the Community Development Department is inconsistently applying the Scenic Combining District regulations. The Scenic Combining District restricts agricultural uses in certain scenic areas that preserve the beauty of Lake County, however, cannabis cultivation is a commercial activity and is clearly regulated as such. As I'm sure you are aware cannabis cultivation buildings are required to meet commercial building standards, not agricultural standards which are less costly. Furthermore, applying the Scenic Combining District restrictions to the entire parcel rather than just the adjacent and visible lands that are within the scenic area is not consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
I had a pre-application conference earlier this year, and was told that I had to locate greenhouses where they could not be seen from the County road because of a scenic combining district. We were about to submit our application to the County, when my consultant showed us what just happened to Igzatik Farms, and told us that we couldn't build greenhouses anywhere on our property. Why do things keep changing? If Igzatik Farms split their property into two 20-acre parcels, one parcel with the scenic district and one further form the road, could they have built the greenhouses on the new parcel further from the road? Why does a scenic combining district in one part of a property affect the whole property? Would this be the case for a +160-acre parcel?
Thank You,
Dustin
The CDD has taken the stance that if a Scenic Combining District passes through a parcel, then the entire parcel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Scenic Combining District. This is inconsistent with the County's Zoning Ordinance. Article 3 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance outlines how districts were established, with their location and boundaries displayed on Sectional District Maps. On November 24th I submitted a Public Information Request to the CDD requesting the Sectional District Map(s) for another property. I still have not received the requested information.
I would really like to see the Sectional District Map for this property, as I believe that it will conclusively prove that the Scenic Combining District affects a small portion of the Applicant's property, and that the CDD has errored in requiring the Applicant to remove greenhouses from their application.
The Community Development Department is incorrectly applying the rules and regulations of Scenic Combining Districts. As such, this Applicant was erroneously forced to change their Major Use Permit Application from both outdoor and mixed-light cultivation, to outdoor only. Please see the attached letter detailing how the CDD has erroneously applied the rules and regulations for Scenic Combining Districts.
Thank You,
Lance Williams
Please read attached Letter, Thank you
It has come to my attention that the Community Development Department is inconsistently applying the Scenic Combining District regulations. The Scenic Combining District restricts agricultural uses in certain scenic areas that preserve the beauty of Lake County, however, cannabis cultivation is a commercial activity and is clearly regulated as such. As I'm sure you are aware cannabis cultivation buildings are required to meet commercial building standards, not agricultural standards which are less costly. Furthermore, applying the Scenic Combining District restrictions to the entire parcel rather than just the adjacent and visible lands that are within the scenic area is not consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
I had a pre-application conference earlier this year, and was told that I had to locate greenhouses where they could not be seen from the County road because of a scenic combining district. We were about to submit our application to the County, when my consultant showed us what just happened to Igzatik Farms, and told us that we couldn't build greenhouses anywhere on our property. Why do things keep changing? If Igzatik Farms split their property into two 20-acre parcels, one parcel with the scenic district and one further form the road, could they have built the greenhouses on the new parcel further from the road? Why does a scenic combining district in one part of a property affect the whole property? Would this be the case for a +160-acre parcel?
Thank You,
Dustin
The CDD has taken the stance that if a Scenic Combining District passes through a parcel, then the entire parcel is subject to the rules and regulations of the Scenic Combining District. This is inconsistent with the County's Zoning Ordinance. Article 3 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance outlines how districts were established, with their location and boundaries displayed on Sectional District Maps. On November 24th I submitted a Public Information Request to the CDD requesting the Sectional District Map(s) for another property. I still have not received the requested information.
I would really like to see the Sectional District Map for this property, as I believe that it will conclusively prove that the Scenic Combining District affects a small portion of the Applicant's property, and that the CDD has errored in requiring the Applicant to remove greenhouses from their application.
The Community Development Department is incorrectly applying the rules and regulations of Scenic Combining Districts. As such, this Applicant was erroneously forced to change their Major Use Permit Application from both outdoor and mixed-light cultivation, to outdoor only. Please see the attached letter detailing how the CDD has erroneously applied the rules and regulations for Scenic Combining Districts.
Thank You,
Lance Williams