Memorandum
Date: April 21, 2026
To: The Honorable Lake County Board of Supervisors
From: Mireya G. Turner, Community Development Director
Mary Claybon, Senior Planner
Subject: 11:00 A.M. - Consideration of Appeal (PL-26-12), Peter Luchetti, of Planning Commission’s Approval of Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15), Rancho Lake, LLC; Location: 19955, 19986, 20110, and 22222 Grange Road, Middletown (APNs 014-290-08; 014-300-02, 03, & 04)
Executive Summary:
On January 8, 2026, the Lake County Planning Commission approved a Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15) and Initial Study (IS21-13) request for commercial cannabis cultivation of 19.6 acres of outdoor canopy and a Type 13 Distributor, Self Transport only, on a property located at 19955, 19986, 20110, and 22222 Grange Road, Middletown (APNs 014-290-08; 014-300-02, 03, & 04). The Planning Commission approved the project on a 3 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Brown absent. The Planning Commission Memorandum and associated documents are included as Exhibit A; and the meeting may be viewed online at: https://lakecounty.granicus.com/player/clip/816?view_id=1&redirect=true>
In accordance with County of Lake Zoning Code Section 58.31, the appellant filed an appeal (PL-26-12) of the Planning Commission’s decision on January 8, 2026. The appeal application is included in Exhibit B. The appellant claims the project has substantive CEQA violations and inadequate environmental review, land use incompatibility, general welfare, and reservation of rights. An analysis of the appeal is provided in Section IV below.
There was no new information presented at the Planning Commission hearing or within the appeal application that identified inconsistencies between the project (as conditioned) and the County Code, or information resulting in Staff being unable to recommend the findings required for a Major Use Permit and adoption of the Initial Study. As such, Staff’s original recommendation for approval of the project remains. Staff recommend the Board deny the appeal (PL-26-12) upholding the Planning Commission’s adoption of the Initial Study and approval of Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15).
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
An application for Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15) was originally submitted on April 5, 2021, and initially proposed a total canopy area of approximately 73.4 acres. To ensure compliance with setback requirements from waterways, an existing PG&E utility easement, and to address operational considerations, the scope was revised multiple times which resulted in reductions to both the cultivation area and canopy size.
The final proposal includes the cultivation of 19.6 acres outdoor commercial cannabis canopy within a 34-acre cultivation area; and a Type 13 Distribution, Self Transport only license located at 19955, 19986, 20110, and 22222 Grange Road, Middletown (APNs 014-290-08; 014-300-02, 014-300-03, & 014-300-04). The proposed cultivation would occur on APN 014-290-08 while additional parcels will be used for clustering. A detailed project description and site plans can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibits A1 and A2.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires agencies to evaluate the environmental implications of land use actions. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit A5) was prepared and circulated for public review in compliance with CEQA from November 1, 2023, to November 30, 2023. The Initial Study found all impacts to be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures related to Aesthetics, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities, and Mandatory Findings of Significance.
II. BASIS FOR THE APPROVAL
The Planning Commission found that the proposed project meets all of the codified requirements contained within the Lake County Zoning Ordinance and state cannabis regulations.
III. APPEAL ANALYSIS
The Appeal (PL-26-12) of the January 8, 2026, Planning Commission decision was filed by the applicant in a timely manner on January 12, 2026. The appellant has raised concerns specific to substantive CEQA violations and inadequate environmental review, land use incompatibility, general welfare, and reservation of rights. The appeal application (PL-26-12) is included in Exhibit B. Issues raised by the appellant and Staff’s response to each of the issues is provided below.
Substantive CEQA violations and inadequate environmental review for Water Resources and Hydrological Impacts, Traffic Impacts and Emergency Evacuation, Inadequate Biological Study, Failure to Comply With Fire Safety Standards, Land Use Incompatibility, Threat to Organic Certification (pesticide drift), Inadequate Buffers, Absence of Engineered Odor Controls, Inadequate Setbacks and Conflicts with Residential Use, and Prime Farmland Incompatibility
1. Water Resources
Putah Creek, a perennial Class I watercourse, traverses the northernmost section of the property from west to east. Additionally, Crazy Creek, an intermittent Class II watercourse, flows from west to east through the northwest portion of the site and joins Putah Creek. Several unnamed intermittent Class III watercourses also run from south to north, ultimately feeding into Putah Creek. All setbacks from watercourses have been identified.
2. Hydrological Impacts
The site is enrolled with the California Water Resources Quality Control Board’s General Order and the applicant has submitted of a Notice of Applicability dated October 31, 2020, or prior, as required under Lake County Zoning Ordinance, Article 27, Uses Generally Permitted.
A Hydrogeologic Assessment was prepared by Hurvitz Environmental Services Inc. According to the Assessment, the proposed cultivation operation has an estimated annual water use requirement of approximately 49.2 acre-ft/year. The recharge rate is estimated to be approximately 793.2 acre-ft/year. The Report concluded that the site can sustainably produce the water needed to meet the Project demands. The Drought Management Plan identifies Best Management Practices per the State Water Resources Control Board’s Cannabis General Order to conserve water resources during normal times and in times of drought.
The project consultant and the certified Hydrogeologist, Lee Hurvitz of Hurvitz Environmental Services, Inc. provided information that Putah Creek and the project’s well do not have direct interference, as further discussed within the assessment. The irrigation well is located approximately 230 feet from the current Putah Creek channel. The radius of pumping influence suggests that groundwater well use would not have a direct effect on stream flow at this distance. This project does not involve water rights or surface water diversion.
3. Traffic Impacts and emergency evacuation access
The internal traffic analysis conducted indicated an average of 24 daily trips, with up to 40 trips during peak seasons, which does not meet the CEQA threshold of 110 or more trips to necessitate a detailed traffic study. A formal traffic study was not recommended for this project, in accordance with CEQA guidelines. Staff was directed to reach out for agency comment to the fire district, who deferred to Lake County Sheriff’s Office and Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES responded to the request for comment (Exhibit A9) and is summarized below.
OES does not conduct or certify evacuation capacity, clearance times, or traffic modeling, and is not able to determine whether a specific project would or would not affect evacuation performance along Grange Road. OES does provide input related to operational awareness, preparedness, and workplace safety, particularly for projects located along evacuation routes or in hazard-prone areas. Evacuation routes are incident-specific. While Grange Road may function as an evacuation route under certain conditions, how and when it is used depends on the type of incident, conditions at the time, and direction from the Sheriff’s Office. There is no single, fixed evacuation pattern that applies to all scenarios.
Conditions of Approval were amended by the Planning Commission prior to project approval at the January 8, 2026, hearing to include a condition from Lake OES as a result of the agency comment received.
4. Biological Surveys
The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures specific to biological resources; as identified within the biological surveys and agency comment received during the review period. According to the CEQA analysis, impacts relating to Biological Resources would be reduced to Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5. These mitigation measures are reiterated within the projects Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A3)
The following assessments were analyzed in accordance with CDFW, USFWS, and CNPS requirements and provided for analysis.
• Biological Assessment Natural Investigations Company, Inc. G.O. Graening, PhD and Tim Nosal, MS dated March 3, 2021.
o Consulting biologist Tim Nosal, MS. conducted a reconnaissance-level field survey on February 8 and 9, 2021.
• Botanical Survey Natural Investigations Company, Inc. G.O. Graening, PhD, Tim Nosal, MS, and Kevin Downing, June 7, 2021
o Tim Nosal, MS., February 8 and 9, 2021; Kevin Downing; April 21, 2021, and June 3, 2021.
5. Failure to comply with Fire Safety Standards
The site is situated within a moderate fire hazard severity zone and features relatively flat terrain. Historically, the site has been used for animal grazing and agricultural purposes. As part of the project, fire mitigation measures will be implemented in accordance with Public Resource Code (PRC) §4290 and §4291 Fire Safety Standards, including road width requirements, appropriate turnarounds, gate access, defensible space creation, and the installation of water tanks designated for fire suppression. Internal gates and roadways will meet the requirements of PRC §4290 and will be equipped with a Knox box to ensure rapid access for emergency responders.
6. Threat to Organic Certification (Pesticide Drift)
Article 27, Uses Generally Permitted of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance identifies uses, design standards, and other regulatory criteria that each project must adhere to are important considerations. Pesticide use in Lake County falls under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Department of Pesticide Regulation, with oversight at the local level by the Agricultural Commissioner. The applicant has included a Pest Management Plan as part of their Property Management Plan. On May 28, 2021, the Agricultural Commissioner provided agency comments noting that the operator must obtain a pesticide operator identification number in order to purchase and apply pesticides. Additionally, the operator must acquire a private applicator certificate to train employees involved in pesticide application.
It is not uncommon for conventional and organic farmed properties to exist side by side. However, pesticide applicators have a responsibility when making applications to not allow products to drift or to continue making an application when the weather conditions would favor potential drift. The operator (and all employees who are applying pesticides) are required to obtain a pesticide permit and recommends a private applicator certificate (PAC). Additionally, the project’s Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration addresses pesticides within mitigation measures which are reiterated within the project’s Conditions of Approval.
7. Absence of engineered odor control
Odor management for outdoor commercial cannabis canopy is addressed through minimum setback requirements from property lines (100 feet) and offsite residences (200 feet). The applicant plans to dry cannabis within Harvest Storage & Staging engineered membrane structures for seasonal use. The structures do not include the use of air filtration equipment due to being temporary in nature. The structures will be erected in July of each year and deconstructed each December. The intent is for there to be little to no evidence during the winter and spring seasons of the cultivation activities that occurred during the summer and fall of the previous year. No permanent foundations for these structures are proposed.
Odor control measures are mandated for permanent greenhouse structures located within the Farmland Protection Zone. Since the project involves outdoor cultivation under full sun, the use of odor filtration equipment is not required. The site has been used for cattle grazing previously and will continue to support grazing for future use. This is consistent with the neighboring cattle farm. Odors from traditional agriculture are not quantified.
8. Inadequate setbacks and conflicts with residential use
The closest off-site residence is approximately 1,000 feet from the project site, while a secondary residence is approximately 900 feet away. The proposed location of the cannabis canopy exceeds the 200-foot setback requirement for off-site residences as specified in Article 27.11 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance.
9. Prime Farmland Incompatibility/ Inadequate Buffers
The Project will utilize approximately 40 acres (2.5%) of the total 1,627-acre property. The remaining land will continue to be used for grazing and agricultural purposes. The proposed outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation activities are agricultural in nature such as planting crops and harvesting product, and align with existing land use patterns, surrounding uses, and applicable zoning regulations.
Lake County Ordinance 3103 offers additional protections to lands within the Farmland Protection Zone (FPZ) by establishing development standards and setback requirements. Specifically, outdoor cannabis cultivation is not permitted within any FPZ or within a 1,000 foot buffer of FPZ lands. Within the FPZ, mixed-light commercial cannabis canopy, within permanent structures, must be equipped with odor filtration.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors has not designated the project area or neighboring parcels as a Farmland Protection Zone (FPZ). The nearest FPZ land is situated in the Lower Lake area along State Highway 29, approximately 10 miles (as the crow flies) from the project site.
Conclusion. CDD Staff must analyze projects for conformance with existing code requirements and regulations. As summarized above and discussed in detail throughout January 8, 2026, Planning Commission Memorandum and associated documents, the project meets all required regulations related to development and siting, is also consistent with the General Plan and Middletown Area Plan. Staff recommends the Board deny the appeal, upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of the project. Findings for approval are provided below; Conditions of Approval are included in Exhibit A3.
IV. MAJOR USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
The Review Authority shall only approve or conditionally approve a Major Use Permit (LCZO Section 51.4, Major Use Permits) if all of the following findings are made:
1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the County.
The proposed use of commercial cannabis cultivation is a permitted use in the “A” Agriculture zoning district upon issuance of a Major Use Permit pursuant to Article 27, Sec. 21-27, Sec. 27.11 Table B of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance. The project scope complies with the minimum regulatory requirements set by the local ordinances to address the health, safety, morals, comforts, and general welfare of those working or residing near the proposed use. The project meets or exceeds all required setbacks for the use, including distance to nearby sensitive receptors. Prior to the applicant operating or constructing any structure(s), the applicant shall obtain the necessary permits and licenses from the appropriate federal, state, and/or local government agencies. Additionally, the CDD would conduct annual compliance monitoring inspections during the cultivation season to ensure compliance with the County’s ordinances, the approved Property Management Plan, mitigation measures, and Conditions of Approval.
2. That the site for the project is adequate in size, shape, location, and physical characteristics to accommodate the type of use and level of development proposed.
The proposal is for 19.6 acres outdoor commercial cannabis canopy area. The Lake County Cannabis Ordinance allows for discretionary use of cultivation on Agriculture zoned property when the project meets the applicable size and locational criteria and standards. Specifically, the County requires 20 acres for each acre of outdoor cannabis canopy to be grown. The project proposes utilizing four parcels, for a total of 1,627-acres to cultivate 19.6 acres of outdoor canopy within a 34-acre cultivation area.
3. That the streets, highways and pedestrian facilities are reasonably adequate to safely accommodate the specific proposed use.
The project site is accessible via Grange Road, a County-maintained paved road from State Highway 29. Construction activities are expected to result in a minimal increase in traffic, primarily involving small vehicles for construction, maintenance, and regular deliveries on a weekly and/or monthly basis. The cultivation site is situated approximately five miles from Middletown and approximately seven miles from Lower Lake, which are the nearest population centers and likely residential areas for employees.
Up to twenty employees are likely during peak harvest times, with an average of twelve employees working during construction (site preparation), and during non-peak harvest times. A total of two weekly deliveries would result from non-employees. The estimated trips per day for the proposed project are between 12 and 24 during normal operation, and up to 40 trips per day during construction, which is expected to occur over a four-to-six-week period. As discussed further in the Initial Study (Exhibit A5) the project would not generate or attract more than 110 trips per day; therefore, it is not expected for the project to have a potentially significant level of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Impacts related to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3. subdivision (b) would be less than significant. The applicant proposes interior roadway improvements in accordance with PRC 4290 Road Standards.
4. That there are adequate public or private services, including but not limited to fire protection, water supply, sewage disposal, and police protection to serve the project.
The project site will utilize a permitted onsite groundwater well and twenty 5,000-gallon water storage tanks for irrigation and fire suppression. The project parcel(s) are served by Pacific Gas & Electric, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection CAL FIRE, and the South Lake County Fire Protection District. The applicant is required to adhere to all applicable local, state, and federal regulations, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval intended to ensure adequate site. The project was routed to all the affected public and private service providers (including Public Works, Special Districts, Environmental Health, PG&E) for comment and review; no adverse comments were received and there are adequate public utilities and services available to the site.
5. That the project is in conformance with the applicable provisions and policies of this Code, the General Plan and any approved zoning or land use plan.
The cultivation of commercial cannabis is a permitted use within the Agriculture zoning district upon securing a Major Use Permit according to Article 27.11 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, although the Lake County General Plan does not have any provisions specifically for commercial cannabis, both the General Plan and the Middletown Area Plan have provisions for economic development, water resources, cultural resources, agricultural resources, and land use compatibility. The proposed cultivation area is not located within a Cannabis Exclusion Zone and complies with the minimum setbacks and development standards. See Project Analysis section of this Staff Report for a detailed discussion of the consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Code.
6. That no violation of Chapters 5, 17, 21, 23 or 26 of the Lake County Code currently exists on the property, unless the purpose of the permit is to correct the violation, or the permit relates to a portion of the property which is sufficiently separate and apart from the portion of the property in violation so as not to be affected by the violation from a public health, safety or general welfare basis.
There are no known violations of Chapters 5, 17, 21, 23, or 26 of the Lake County Code on the project property.
7. The proposed use complies with all development standards described in Chapter 21, Article 27, Section 1.i.
As described in the Zoning Ordinance Consistency section of the Planning Commission Staff Report, the project meets all Development Standards, General Requirements and Restrictions as specified within Article 27.11(at) of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance.
8. The applicant is qualified to make the application described in Chapter 21, Article 27, Section 1.ii.(g).
The applicant has passed a ‘live scan’ background check and is qualified to undertake a commercial cannabis cultivation activity subject to approval of this use permit. All employees of this project will also be required to pass a ‘live scan’ background check. The application complies with the qualifications for a permit described in Chapter 21, Article 27, Section 1.ii.(i).
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend the Board of Supervisors:
Deny the Appeal (PL-26-12), upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15) and Initial Study (IS 23-13), subject to the findings in the Memorandum dated April 21, 2026, and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A3).
Sample Motions:
Appeal Denial (PL-26-12)
I move that the Board of Supervisors deny Appeal (PL-26-12), upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Major Use Permit (PL-25-13) for (UP 21-15) and adoption of Initial Study (IS 21-13) and direct staff to prepare Draft Findings of Fact.