My name is Joanie Henderson. I am submitting comment in opposition to the Poverty Flats Major Use permit.

I was shocked to see the same issues are occurring with this Major Use Permit as the ones that I and my neighbors opposed in our own neighborhood. Why is the Lake County Community Development Department continuing to abuse its power?

I am very concerned about the following with regard to this Major Use permit:
The road leading to project site is County road, High Valley Road and is the only way in and out of High Valley. This road does not meet State of CA fire safe road standards (Public Resource Code PRC 4290). According to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project cannot proceed when enforceable and effective mitigation measures do not reduce risk to “less than significant”, as the County claims.
Crossing Federal Lands Without Federal Permission. Poverty Flats Ranch is among several cannabis projects approved by the County that require federal approval to cross federal land to get to the project site. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) refused access and informed the County of such on several occasions. Without federal (BLM) approval, the project cannot proceed.

I am very concerned the there are known water availability Issues in this Project Area. Wells in the project area have gone dry. Neighbors have had to dig new and deeper wells. The Poverty Flats cannabis permit application does not account for water usage in the area, including a large vineyard. California Environmental Quality Act requires the study of the project’s cumulative impact (e.g. water draw) on the area.

I am also VERY CONCERNED with the prejudicial behavior by Lake County Community Development Department; omission, obstruction, procedural errors and CDD misconduct; inadequate permit application reports and analysis; noncompliance with Public Records Act requests.

I am very concerned about the repeated abuse by the Lake County Community Development Department. The public has had enough. Please hear our voice and do not approve the Poverty Flats Major Use Permit.

Thank you for hearing the public's outcry!

Joanie Henderson

Subject: Poverty Flats Appeal – Verification of Bald Eagle Video Evidence
Dear Chair and Members of the Board,

My name is Randy Wilk, and I am submitting this comment because I cannot attend the hearing in person. I wish to clarify the origin and reliability of the Bald Eagle video referenced in the Appellants’ Master Appeal.

I am the person who recorded the video in question. It was taken on High Valley Road in June of 2025 at the point where the road crosses the property on which the Poverty Flats project is located. This is within the same habitat and viewshed area discussed in the Appeal.
Although I am not a bird expert, I was accompanied that day by an individual who is highly experienced in identifying raptors. That person immediately identified the bird as a Bald Eagle, based on its size, flight characteristics, and observable markings. This identification is consistent with known Bald Eagle activity in the High Valley and Clear Lake region, as documented by CDFW and local observers.
I want the Board to know that:
• The video is authentic and was recorded by me at the project site.
• A qualified observer on-site made the species identification, not after the fact.
• The sighting constitutes credible biological evidence relevant to CEQA review.
Under CEQA’s fair-argument standard, even a single credible observation, particularly one supported by video documentation and expert confirmation, constitutes substantial evidence requiring proper analysis. If a survey reveals an active nest or suitable nest site, then mitigation (or avoidance) measures must be specified — such as avoiding disturbance, establishing buffer/ setback zones, restricting timing of work, etc.
In CEQA documents across California, the common minimum is:
• ¼ mile (1,320 ft) absolute minimum
• ½ mile (2,640 ft) preferred or required for line-of-sight or loud construction activities.
The Applicant’s attempt to dismiss the video as “blurry” does not reflect how CEQA treats biological-resource evidence.
In addition, Lake county has failed to address the related illegal grading on top of the Schindler Creek tributary.
Thank you for considering this clarification, and please include this comment in the administrative record.

Respectfully,
Randy Wilk

Re: Misleading Access Statement in Staff’s Legislative Letter – Poverty Flats Appeal

Chair and Members of the Board,

I submit this comment to address a significant factual and legal error in the Staff Legislative Letter transmitted to the Board as part of the record for the upcoming Poverty Flats appeal hearing. In that letter, Staff states:

“High Valley Road is a county-maintained road and a prescriptive right-of-way; therefore, the road is open to all the public who wish to access the road.”

Because this statement is now part of the official record, it is important to clarify for the Board that it is factually misleading, legally incorrect, and not applicable to the access issue before you. Although Staff can no longer revise the record, the Board retains full authority to evaluate the accuracy and weight of the evidence presented.

1. Staff’s statement misrepresents what a prescriptive right-of-way legally allows.

A prescriptive easement is limited to the historic type and intensity of use that created the easement. It does not authorize new or intensified commercial or industrial traffic, and it cannot be expanded beyond its original scope without the consent of the underlying property owner.

More critically, federal land is categorically immune from prescriptive easements.
This means:

No prescriptive public easement exists across the Berryessa Snow Mountain National Monument a federal land segment of High Valley Road under the stewardship of the BLM and USFS, and

County maintenance of portions of the road does not create a right of access across federal property.

Therefore, Staff’s statement that the road is “open to all the public” may describe ordinary travel over county portions of the road but provides no legal basis for commercial access across federal land.

2. Commercial access across BLM land requires a federal authorization, which is absent here.

Under 43 CFR Part 2800, any commercial, industrial, or profit-generating use of federal land—including access to private property—requires a BLM-issued right-of-way (ROW) grant.

Without such a grant:

Commercial use is not permitted,

Road improvements are not permitted, and

NEPA review is required before BLM could authorize such use.

BLM has repeatedly confirmed that:

The County does not hold a perfected ROW through the National Monument (BLM) segment;

The applicant has no ROW; and

The proposed commercial cannabis use cannot legally occur without federal authorization.

Thus, Staff’s general statement about “public access” does not cure the absence of the required federal ROW.

3. Case law directly contradicts the implication that public access equals commercial access.

California and federal courts have repeatedly held:

A public right of travel does not include a right to conduct commercial enterprise over the same route.

Increased or intensified use—particularly heavy commercial traffic—creates a new burden and exceeds the scope of any prescriptive easement.

Government entities cannot obtain prescriptive rights over federal land.

Cases including Dolnikov v. Ekizian, Warsaw v. Chicago Metallic, United States v. Vasarajs, and comparable federal decisions all reinforce that:

A general public-use statement cannot be used to justify commercial access where the underlying property rights do not authorize it.

Staff’s Legislative Letter presents a conclusion that is inconsistent with this settled law.

4. CEQA requires substantial evidence of legal access. The staff statement does not meet that standard.

Because commercial access across the BLM segment has not been legally established, CEQA requires:

Accurate acknowledgment of the access limitation, and

Environmental analysis reflecting the project’s actual legal constraints.

The misstatement in the Staff Letter creates the false impression that legal access has been established. It has not. CEQA does not allow approval based on incorrect assumptions of lawful access, nor may the agency rely on statements contradicted by federal law and by the real property record.

Because Staff cannot revise the record at this stage, it is essential that the Board recognize the limitation of the statement and give it no weight in evaluating the appeal.

Request to the Board

Because the Staff Legislative Letter is already part of the record, and cannot be amended at this point, I respectfully request that the Board:

Acknowledge that the Staff statement does not constitute evidence of legal commercial access across BLM land.

Give no evidentiary weight to Staff’s assertion that High Valley Road is “open to all the public” for purposes of commercial operations.

Require that lawful access be demonstrated—including compliance with federal right-of-way requirements—before any approval is considered.

Recognize that CEQA does not allow approval where legal access is unresolved, uncertain, or incorrectly described in the administrative record.

This correction is necessary not to criticize Staff, but to ensure the Board’s decision is based on accurate law, substantial evidence, and a legally adequate record.

Thank you for your attention.

Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Lajcik