LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — In a unanimous vote, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday dealt another blow to a large cannabis project that would have been located next to south county subdivisions and which proposed to remove a large portion of a blue oak woodland.
Tuesday’s vote against WeGrow LLC was the second action the board has taken against Zarina Otchkova’s project.
The project Otchkova proposed included growing, processing and distribution operations on a nine-acre portion of a 309-acre property at 16750 Herrington Road, 17610 Sandy Road and 19678 Stinson Road in Middletown, located next door to several residential subdivisions, including Hidden Valley Lake.
Principal Planner Michael McGinnis said the original application for WeGrow was heard by the Lake County Planning Commission on April 22, 2021, when the use permit was approved 4-1.
However, an appeal filed by neighbors in nearby subdivisions went to the Board of Supervisors on June 8, 2021. At that time, the board upheld the appeal and denied the use permit without prejudice due to a discrepancy in the site plan submitted to the state clearinghouse, which differed from the site plan approved by the commission.
McGinnis said Otchkova reapplied for a use permit with the amended site plan with documentation including a cumulative water availability analysis, a tree removal and revegetation plan, updated well test and a traffic analysis.
The Planning Commission heard the new version of the project on Feb. 24, at which time it denied WeGrow’s use permit application in a 4-0 vote. Otchkova filed an appeal on March 2.
McGinnis said the property currently has a two-story barn and residence on the site, along with a well and an access road.
He said it would include a total of 34 greenhouses, each with more than 10,000 square feet of growing area, along with four 5,000 square foot drying buildings, two 200-square-foot sheds and 20 5,000 gallon water tanks. Total cultivation area was estimated at 387,600 square feet.
The hydrology study concluded the project would use 4,713,410 gallons or 14 acre feet of water annually, but that the water use would cause no adverse cumulative impacts to other nearby wells, McGinnis said.
However, one of the key factors that supervisors cited in making their denial, and which also was an issue for planning staff, was Otchkova’s proposal to remove 130 mature blue oak trees.
McGinnis said it’s very rare to find intact oak savanna in California. In areas of the region, many of the remaining blue oak woodlands were never systematically logged and contain trees that range in age from 150 to 500 years.
These woodlands are one of the most extensive old-growth forest types left in California, said McGinnis, who noted that those ancient woodlands contribute to watershed protection and preserve an important component of eroding biodiversity.
“Blue oak savanna is considered one of the oldest ecosystems in California,” he said, adding it’s fair to think of the oak as the “king of biodiversity.”
The removal of those 130 oaks trees is not something that can be mitigated to a less than significant level, McGinnis said.
He said contemporary science has found that efforts at replanting have mixed results and are also costly. That’s because blue oak plantations develop habitat conditions slowly — it may take in excess of 50 years to replace mature habitat that is lost in a particular project.
“It can take many generations for a new blue oak plantation to reflect the values that are often lost” due to oak tree removal, he said.
McGinnis pointed to a county ordinance that specifically states the importance of oak woodland ecosystems and the important role landowners play in the responsible stewardship of oak woodlands. County ordinance also says that removing oak trees for cannabis grows should be avoided.
Staff’s written report to the board also pointed out that the scale of oak tree removal WeGrow proposed is inconsistent with the Oak Woodlands Conservation Act in California Fish and Game Code.
McGinnis said the county received more than 100 emails and letters against the project, with opposition coming from the Redbud Audubon Society, California Wildlife Foundation and the Middletown Area Town Hall.
Project ‘mistreated’
Sufyan Hamouda, Otchkova’s representative, said the project was “mistreated.” For two years, the project was under scrutiny and review, and along the way they had been told they had done everything asked of them and the project was moving forward.
He said it was 17 days before the commission’s Feb. 24 hearing that county planning officials told them that the decision had been changed and that staff was recommending its denial because they had determined an environmental impact report was needed.
Hamouda asked board members how they would feel if their project was treated that way, adding the county needs to look at what it wants for its own future, with up to 100 cannabis permits pending.
“No one deserves to be told one thing and action taken in a different direction,” he said.
Eight community members made public comments in person at the meeting, all of them raising issues with the project and opposing it.
“This project is in the wrong place,” said Bart Levenson, who questioned the adequacy of roads and evacuation routes.
Dan Levine asked how it would look to people if Lake County allowed 130 oak trees to be cut down. He added that the county’s cannabis ordinance should be revisited and updated
Their attorney addressed omissions
Craig Bainbridge, who lives on one of the roads that access the property, said he was concerned about biodiversity, and he questioned Otchkova’s proposal to replant oak trees to replace the ones she wanted to remove.
“If somebody could explain to me how that will occur, if that hasn’t occurred naturally,” he said, noting the trees would be placed in an area where they previously hadn’t grown.
His wife, Debbie, followed up by saying she planned to leave if the project went through. “Nature is something we need to treasure. We can’t just go in and do anything we like,” she said, adding that cannabis farms need to be put far away from people.
In their comments, members of the board — in apparent response to Hamouda’s comments about how the project was treated — said the county was learning and now had better and more consistent leadership in place in the Community Development Department.
“It’s going to take us awhile to get things right,” said Supervisor Moke Simon, who added that the county approves or denies projects based on their individual merit.
Supervisor Bruno Sabatier said he didn’t think a new cultural analysis had been done, and referenced a letter from Sally Peterson of the Middletown Rancheria that noted the importance of blue oaks and how they are typically close to areas where archaeological sites are found.
“For myself, it’s the blue oaks,” said Supervisor Tina Scott of her problems with the project , also noting that the county ordinance is clear about not removing oaks to allow for cannabis grows. She said the project should not have gotten this far.
Supervisor Jessica Pyska said she hadn’t heard anything to change her mind about the project, also pointing to her concerns about the tree removal.
“I think we are making progress. We’re trying to do better,” she said.
Pyska also raised the philosophical question of who does the hydrology report, explaining that she finds it problematic that it’s the applicant’s responsibility. She said she wants to see neutral analysis of hydrology and cumulative impacts.
Hamouda, when given the opportunity, offered no additional rebuttals to the comments made by members of the public or the board.
Simon moved to deny the appeal and uphold the Lake County Planning Commission’s decision, with Pyska seconding and the board voting 5-0. The board also gave the County Counsel’s Office direction to draft the intended decision.
The vote received a round of applause from the audience.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.