File #: 19-1185    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Action Item Status: Agenda Ready
File created: 12/17/2019 In control: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
On agenda: 1/14/2020 Final action:
Title: 9:30 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING Consideration of Appeal, AB 19-02 of Use Permit, UP 18-23 and Initial Study, IS 18-28. APN: 013-060-18
Sponsors: Community Development
Attachments: 1. Exhibit A Appellants Documents, 2. Exhibit B Staff Report, 3. Exhibit B2, 4. Exhibit B3, 5. Exhibit C PC Minutes, 6. Exhibit C2 Guerra Handout, 7. Exhibit D PRC 1273, 8. Exhibit E Parcel Map, 9. Exhibit F BOS Legal Notice, 10. Exhibit G Ewing & Associates Letter
Title
Body
MEMORANDUM

Date: January 14, 2020
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Michalyn DelValle, Community Development Director
Eric Porter, Associate Planner
Subject: Consideration of Appeal, AB 19-02 of Use Permit, UP 18-23 and Initial Study, IS 18-28. APN: 013-060-18
Supervisor District 1.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Appellant, Antonio Guerra represented by attorney Andre Ross, is appealing the Planning Commission's April 11, 2019 decision to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve a Major Use Permit (files no. UP 18-23 and IS 18-28), to allow an A-Type 3 (outdoor) commercial cannabis cultivation site at 15232 Spruce Grove Road, Lower Lake; APN number 013-060-18.

Background
The use permit applicant, Will Dawson, was approved for 'Early Activation' on June 28, 2018 through file number EA 18-18. This approval enabled him to plant cannabis in 2018 while his major use permit was under review. Mr. Dawson was approved again for Early Activation on March 27, 2019 through file number EA 19-04; this enabled him to plant in 2019 while his major use permit review process concluded.

On February 27, 2019, a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was mailed to property owners within 725 feet of the proposed cannabis site; the notice was sent to Mr. Guerra as an affected neighbor.

In March 2019, the appellant, Mr. Guerra, contacted staff by phone and in person to express concerns about the applicant and his employees using an easement that went through Mr. Guerra's property. The parcel map (Exhibit E) that created both properties in 1994 did not show the 20' wide access easement, which had been recorded separately after the parcel map had been approved. The easement is identified through metes and bounds legal description (see Reference Appellant's Exhibit A, page 2), and is visible in its current location via Google Maps; please see aerial photo below.

The Easements
There are two recorded easements associated with the applicant's pro...

Click here for full text