Subject: 11:00 A.M. - HEARING - Consideration of Appeal (AB-PL-25-85) of Planning Commission's Revocation of Major Use Permit (UP 20-50); for Commercial Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation of up to 110,000 sf; Located at 26102 19N16 Road, Lake Pillsbury (APN 001-030-36); Permittee: John Evans/Pillsbury Family Farms
Executive Summary: On March 27, 2025, the Planning Commission approved the Community Development (CDD) Director’s recommendation to revoke Major Use Permit (UP 20-50) for John Evans/Pillsbury Family Farms for commercial outdoor cannabis cultivation. They based their decision on the findings that the Permittee cultivated commercial cannabis in 2022 without a state license, and a background check disqualification for Pillsbury Family Farms, LLC Chief Financial Officer, Director, and cultivator Justin Quayle. The staff report and attachments are included as Exhibit 1.
An appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision was received in a timely manner (Exhibit 2). The Appellant’s basis for the appeal is listed below, with staff responses to follow.
1. The Applicant diligently pursued its state license.
2. Pending criminal record expungement should delay Board action.
3. Due process and discretion should be exercised fairly.
4. No ongoing public safety risk.
5. The disqualification of one individual member should not invalidate the entire permit.
1. The Applicant cultivated prior to securing a state license.
The Planning Commission approved Major Use Permit (UP 20-50) on January 27, 2022. Condition of Approval (COA) Item A.2 states, “This permit does not abridge or supersede the regulatory powers or permit requirements of any federal, state, local agency, special district or department which may retain a regulatory or advisory function as specified by statue or ordinance. The applicant shall obtain permits as may be required from each agency. COA Item A.6 states, “All necessary permits shall be obtained from applicable Federal, State and County agencies having jurisdiction over this project prior to this use permit being of any force or effect, including but not limited to, Department of Cannabis Control, Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Fish and Wildlife, The State Water Resources Control Board, Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, Central Valley or North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Public Health, and Department of Consumer Affairs.”
The Permittee began commercial outdoor cannabis cultivation after the County approved UP 20-50. Their application with the state was not submitted until August 16, 2022. When the Annual Compliance Monitoring Site Visit was conducted on October 12, 2022, active cultivation of cannabis plans was observed, with no proof of a state license.
Section 27.13(1)(ii) allows for a major use permit to be deemed authorized by the County to engage in cannabis cultivation operations in instances where there is a delay in the State’s issuance of a state cannabis cultivation license. It is the department’s position that the time between August 16, 2022, when the state license application was received, and October 12, 2022, when cannabis cultivation was observed, is not a delay by the state, but rather is normal license processing time, which would not deem UP 20-50 authorized to cultivate.
2. Pending criminal record expungement should not delay Board action.
The CDD Director sent the Permittee a Notice of Intent to Recommend Revocation of Major Use Permit (UP 20-50) on April 9, 2024, based on unlicensed cultivation and background check disqualification of one of the members of the LLC. The Permittee requested more detailed information regarding the reasons for the disqualification notice. CDD provided the explanation that, according to the Lake County Code, the Sheriff’s Office (SO) receives the Live Scan application, which is then submitted to the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Sheriff’s Department Staff reviews the reports from those agencies and sends CDD a notification of qualification or disqualification. The possible disqualifying criteria are listed on the Live Scan Application, included in Attachment 1. Staff referred the Permittee to the Sheriff’s Office for more information regarding the SO’s decision.
Between April 9, 2024 and February 7, 2025, Staff maintained periodic correspondence with the Permittee in order to allow for time for the Permittee to seek resolution on the background check disqualification. On February 7, 19, and 21, 2025, Staff received correspondence from a representative of the Permittee, named John Phillips, Jr., demanding CDD schedule a revocation hearing immediately. The revocation hearing was then scheduled by CDD andheld before the Planning Commission on March 27, 2025 (Exhibit 3).
3. Due process and discretion were “exercised fairly” by both CDD and the Planning Commission.
Due process was followed. The March 27, 2025 Planning Commission hearing was held according to the process required in Chapter 21 of the Lake County Code. Although not required under the County Ordinance, the revocation hearing was scheduled within a reasonable time of the Permittee’s request. An application for appeal to the Board of Supervisors was received in a timely manner and scheduled on a Board agenda according to the process required in Chapter 21 of the Lake County Ordinance.
4. Public safety risk was not the determination on which the revocation was based.
According to Article 60 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance, “the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors may revoke or modify any minor use, major use, variance or development review permit or specific plan of development granted in accordance with the terms of this Chapter, on any one or more of the following grounds:
(1) That such permit was obtained by fraud.
(2) That one or more of the terms or conditions upon which such permit was granted has been violated.
(3) That the use for which the permit was granted is so conducted as to be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or as to be a nuisance.”
The Planning Commission found that Part 2 listed above is violated by the permit user in this case. They determined that both commercial cannabis cultivation without the conditional prerequisites being met and the disqualification of a member of the permit user’s team are violations of the Major Use Permit’s Conditions of Approval. Public safety risk was not included in the Director’s recommendation to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission did not base its revocation conclusions on part 3 above.
5. The background check disqualification of one individual LLC member, employee, or corporate owner are all grounds to invalidate the entire permit.
Lake County Municipal Ordinance Chapter 21, Article 27, Section 27.13, Part (at)1ii(f),
All … employees shall undergo a background check by the Lake County Sheriff Department. An individual may fail the background check if employee has been convicted of an offense that is substantially related to the qualifications, functions, or duties of the business or profession for which the application is made, …