LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — On Thursday, the Lake County Planning Commission denied a permit application for a large cannabis operation that would have been located next to Hidden Valley Lake, a move taken at the recommendation of county staff.

Zarina Otchkova’s We Grow LLC’s project proposed a nine-acre grow, processing and distribution operation on a 309-acre property located at 16750 Herrington Road, 17610 Sandy Road and 19678 Stinson Road in Middletown.

The proposal included 34 greenhouses, four drying buildings, a shed, 20 water tanks and privacy fencing.

The previous version of the project was approved by the commission in April of last year but concerned neighbors appealed that decision within the prescribed seven-day appeal period.

In June 2021, the Board of Supervisors heard the appeal and upheld it, citing a faulty environmental document.

However, the board’s vote for the appeal was done without prejudice, allowing the project to be resubmitted, which it was later last year.

On Thursday, Community Development Department staff told the commission that they were recommending denying the project, which the applicant’s attorney and consultant indicated was an abrupt change that caught them off guard when they found out about it earlier this month.

Associate Planner Eric Porter said planning staff put the project through another evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA.

Porter said CEQA is fairly specific in terms of when a project rises to the level of “significant”and requires an environmental impact report, or EIR. A “significant” finding is whenever there are impacts that cannot be adequately mitigated, he said.

In this case, one of the key issues was the proposed removal of 130 mature blue oak trees, which would have to be replaced at a three-to-one ratio, with the tree restoration to take place over a period of up to 40 years.

Porter questioned if those trees’ removal could be mitigated, concluding that it’s unknown but “highly unlikely,” and that the project’s tree removal and replacement plan was not sufficient.

Porter said the tree removal goes beyond the trees itself, and affects the earth, results in erosion and has water impacts which haven’t been evaluated for the difference in demand between mature trees and saplings. He added that the water issue is an unknown.

Commissioner John Hess said it would be years before replacement trees are mature and able to provide what the original trees do. Porter said that’s what concerned groups like the Redbud Audubon Society.

“You’re right. The impacts are pretty obvious and pretty significant,” Porter said to Hess.

He also referred to extensive public comment against the project, with the county receiving close to 150 such comments. Recurring themes in those comments included traffic, security, safety, conflicting land use, water, habitat and odor, among others.

Porter added that an appeal, no matter what decision the commission made, was likely.

Due to the unmitigated impacts, Porter said staff recommended denying the use permit application.

Deputy County Counsel Nicole Johnson read over the mitigated negative declaration and EIR requirements, noting that a mitigated negative declaration can’t go forward if impacts aren’t mitigated.

Otchkova’s attorney, Andrew Azarmi of the Dentons law firm in San Francisco, urged the commission to approve the permit, noting that Otchkova had jumped through each and every hoop asked for by Community Development.

He said the project hadn’t changed one bit in terms of scope and content and yet had taken nearly a year to get back on the agenda.

A few weeks ago, without any consultation or advanced warning, Community Development did “a stunning about face” by informing them that they were recommending the denial. Azarmi said a year ago the commission had unanimously approved the project.

“Respectfully, this is unfair treatment,” he said.

Azarmi said he was not aware of any similar project having to undergo an EIR. “That further indicates that the project is being treated arbitrarily, and that’s what the law prohibits.”

If the commission wanted further study, Azarmi asked for it to be added to the initial study rather than ordering an EIR, which would take a year or more and require hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional cost.

Sufyan Hamouda, We Grow’s consultant, said they were notified 17 days beforehand that an EIR would be required. He said they don’t know how the decision changed.

Hamouda said they had done a tree study but can do more study still if required. He added that he didn’t believe an EIR was necessary or fair after the review the project has undergone.

Addressing the fair argument standard for requiring an EIR, Johnson said it must be prepared when it can be fairly argued that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. “This is a low standard.”

She said impacts include direct, indirect and cumulative, and the evidence doesn’t need to be absolute or unequivocal. It’s not necessary to have information to contradict what the applicant has provided to find contrary to the applicant’s preferred outcome.

“Even if staff had presented you with the same recommendations that had come with any other project that included approval, you are not required to make those findings,” she said.

Johnson said the commission is required to consider all of the evidence and make a determination.

Community speaks against the project

During public comment, project neighbor Dan Levine asked the commission to deny it, noting there have been a lot of changes. He said in an earlier iteration, there had been no plan to cut down oak trees. Even with mitigations, it would have a huge impact on the community.

“I think we need to rethink this,” said Glenn Goodman, explaining that the citizens of the county didn’t sign on for how many cannabis projects the county has approved.

Goodman also said it was “optimistic” that the oak trees would grow back in his grandchildren’s lifetimes.

Bart Levenson said the project would impact roads used as evacuation routes and is likely to further degrade those roads with the traffic the project would generate. She said the project is completely inappropriate. “The community is not being considered.”

Newest Planning Commissioner Maile Field said the commission’s membership has changed since it approved Otchkova’s project last year.

Field went on to say she doesn’t think the oak removal is mitigatable.

Hess said he didn’t agree with Azarmi that nothing has changed in the project.

Commissioner Everardo Chavez said he also had concerns about the project, and said the concerns from community members are real.

Field moved to deny adopting the initial study, which the commission voted unanimously to approve.

Hess then moved to deny the resubmitted major use permit due to insufficient review of the project according to the California Environmental Quality Act as it relates to oak tree removal of 130 oak trees and as it relates to treatment of soil erosion and drainage.

The commission also voted unanimously to deny the use permit, with that final vote followed by applause.

There is a seven calendar day appeal for the decision.

In other business on Thursday, the commission approved cannabis projects proposed by North Coast Select Inc. at 1496 Bell Hill Road in Kelseyville; Cristhian Hernandez at 2000 Clover Valley Road in Upper Lake; and Linodhi Inc. at 6690 Wilkinson Road in Kelseyville.

Editor’s note: The wording of the motion Field made to deny the adoption of the initial study has been updated to make the action more clear.

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.