6.10 26-02831:00 P.M. - PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 21, Article 27 of the Lake County Code regarding Commercial Cannabis Regulations (Continued from March 10, 2026)
My name is Timothy Kassouni and I represent Rancho Lake LLC, in connection with its Major Use Permit PL-25-13 (UP 21-15) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 21-16), which were previously approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2026 (after a continuance). This Project was appealed by a neighboring property owner to this Board, and a hearing has been scheduled for April 21, 2026.
In reviewing the prior March 10, 2026, public hearing on the matter of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 21, Article 27 of the Lake County Code regarding Commercial Cannabis Regulations, it is apparent that the Board is rightly concerned with the effect of the proposed ordinance on property owners who have already been granted approval for their projects. Rancho Lake LLC has been working on this project for six years at great cost, and in good faith reliance on the existing ordinance. As a matter of basic fairness and sound policy, any ordinance amendment should expressly exempt those property owners who have completed their applications, and who have already had their projects approved by the Planning Commission. County staff, Rancho, and the Comstock family have already devoted six years and thousands of hours to this Project, and it should be allowed to proceed.
Property owners and businesses should be able to rely on existing law when investing substantial time and resources to their projects.
I am also attaching the March 9, 2026, correspondence to this Board from Trey Sherrell, an Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Consultant with ten years of experience working within Lake County and it cannabis farmers. Mr. Sherrell further articulates the “crushing blow” to those who have already had applications deemed complete, and, in the case of Rancho, already had the application approved by the Planning Commission.
This comment is mostly limited to the "odor impacts" portion of the staff report and the "sampler for terpenes" email attachment. While discussions of agricultural odors generally may be considered by your board, the issue of potential future permitting by AQMD for commercial cannabis cultivation projects -- as discussed in the CDD staff report -- should be considered as a future agenda item for that district's board of directors, not while sitting today as BOS.
As point of information, your board considered AQMD permitting in 2019, with Sup. Sabatier correctly observing it was an "absolute hurdle" to timely processing of cultivation permit applications. Your board heard items on May 14, May 21 and June 11, 2019; on that latter date, the Lake County Air Quality Management District board directed staff "to put the permitting of cannabis cultivation on hold by the Air Quality Department (sic) until such time as the State provides guidance, or the Board directs staff otherwise." A fee-deferral resolution enacted May 21 stated, in relevant part, "That the Board of Directors shall determine on June 11, 2019, whether to continue the period of fee collection deferral to a future date specified or adopt a revised fee structure for the processing LCAQMD cannabis cultivation permits." Then-County Counsel Anita Grant suggested adding qualifying language that permit fees only be collected "when necessary," suggesting AQMD may not necessarily need to require permits for all commercial cannabis cultivation projects.
Seven years later, cannabis projects must obtain AQMD permits for construction and grading activities, just like other ag operations. How and whether to appoint AQMD as the odor police at this late date raises questions that are not easily answered any more than answers existed seven years ago. There is no accepted state standard or threshold to follow, no readily available terpene testing equipment or methodology, and no common agreement on what so-called "qualified odor professionals" should be analyzing in their reports. Given Lake County's highly variable terrain, winds and weather patterns, such reports will be pricey, educated guesses. Another burden piled on top of what is already an onerous and expensive application process, without any hint of justification.
As for AQMD, their persistent staffing challenges make timely processing of common burn and construction permits hard enough. Requiring all cannabis projects to get AQMD permits, regardless of size, setbacks or state statutes and regulations, deflates any hope of AQMD/CDD permit streamlining. As does proposing to collect fees for a permit review process that doesn't exist yet.
As for Yolo County, applying the same air-dilution standard to indoor and mixed-light cultivation ignores the simple fact that fixed-frame greenhouses are not lighted or ventilated the same way as fully enclosed buildings. Your board's consideration of setbacks may be more fruitful than "inverse squares" in addressing off-site odors from greenhouses. Even there, the air district board and staff should first consider whether Lake County AQMD has authority, staffing, and expertise to impose air-quality standards on outdoor/mixed-light cannabis cultivation and to impose reasonable fees for permits and enforcement. Your board in 2019 concluded it did not.
My name is Timothy Kassouni and I represent Rancho Lake LLC, in connection with its Major Use Permit PL-25-13 (UP 21-15) and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS 21-16), which were previously approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2026 (after a continuance). This Project was appealed by a neighboring property owner to this Board, and a hearing has been scheduled for April 21, 2026.
In reviewing the prior March 10, 2026, public hearing on the matter of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 21, Article 27 of the Lake County Code regarding Commercial Cannabis Regulations, it is apparent that the Board is rightly concerned with the effect of the proposed ordinance on property owners who have already been granted approval for their projects. Rancho Lake LLC has been working on this project for six years at great cost, and in good faith reliance on the existing ordinance. As a matter of basic fairness and sound policy, any ordinance amendment should expressly exempt those property owners who have completed their applications, and who have already had their projects approved by the Planning Commission. County staff, Rancho, and the Comstock family have already devoted six years and thousands of hours to this Project, and it should be allowed to proceed.
Property owners and businesses should be able to rely on existing law when investing substantial time and resources to their projects.
I am also attaching the March 9, 2026, correspondence to this Board from Trey Sherrell, an Environmental and Regulatory Compliance Consultant with ten years of experience working within Lake County and it cannabis farmers. Mr. Sherrell further articulates the “crushing blow” to those who have already had applications deemed complete, and, in the case of Rancho, already had the application approved by the Planning Commission.
Thank you for your consideration.
This comment is mostly limited to the "odor impacts" portion of the staff report and the "sampler for terpenes" email attachment. While discussions of agricultural odors generally may be considered by your board, the issue of potential future permitting by AQMD for commercial cannabis cultivation projects -- as discussed in the CDD staff report -- should be considered as a future agenda item for that district's board of directors, not while sitting today as BOS.
As point of information, your board considered AQMD permitting in 2019, with Sup. Sabatier correctly observing it was an "absolute hurdle" to timely processing of cultivation permit applications. Your board heard items on May 14, May 21 and June 11, 2019; on that latter date, the Lake County Air Quality Management District board directed staff "to put the permitting of cannabis cultivation on hold by the Air Quality Department (sic) until such time as the State provides guidance, or the Board directs staff otherwise." A fee-deferral resolution enacted May 21 stated, in relevant part, "That the Board of Directors shall determine on June 11, 2019, whether to continue the period of fee collection deferral to a future date specified or adopt a revised fee structure for the processing LCAQMD cannabis cultivation permits." Then-County Counsel Anita Grant suggested adding qualifying language that permit fees only be collected "when necessary," suggesting AQMD may not necessarily need to require permits for all commercial cannabis cultivation projects.
Seven years later, cannabis projects must obtain AQMD permits for construction and grading activities, just like other ag operations. How and whether to appoint AQMD as the odor police at this late date raises questions that are not easily answered any more than answers existed seven years ago. There is no accepted state standard or threshold to follow, no readily available terpene testing equipment or methodology, and no common agreement on what so-called "qualified odor professionals" should be analyzing in their reports. Given Lake County's highly variable terrain, winds and weather patterns, such reports will be pricey, educated guesses. Another burden piled on top of what is already an onerous and expensive application process, without any hint of justification.
As for AQMD, their persistent staffing challenges make timely processing of common burn and construction permits hard enough. Requiring all cannabis projects to get AQMD permits, regardless of size, setbacks or state statutes and regulations, deflates any hope of AQMD/CDD permit streamlining. As does proposing to collect fees for a permit review process that doesn't exist yet.
As for Yolo County, applying the same air-dilution standard to indoor and mixed-light cultivation ignores the simple fact that fixed-frame greenhouses are not lighted or ventilated the same way as fully enclosed buildings. Your board's consideration of setbacks may be more fruitful than "inverse squares" in addressing off-site odors from greenhouses. Even there, the air district board and staff should first consider whether Lake County AQMD has authority, staffing, and expertise to impose air-quality standards on outdoor/mixed-light cannabis cultivation and to impose reasonable fees for permits and enforcement. Your board in 2019 concluded it did not.