Clearlake council denies appeal of cannabis permit after residents cite drying wells; development agreement given first reading

Clearlake — The Clearlake City Council on Jan. 6 denied an appeal of a Planning Commission approval for a commercial cannabis operation at 2185 Oglund Canyon Road and upheld the commission’s mitigated negative declaration, after lengthy public comment about groundwater impacts.

Councilwoman David Overton moved to adopt resolution CC2022-03 denying appeal AP2021-04; Councilman Kelson Claffey seconded, and the clerk announced the motion passed unanimously. The council then gave first reading to ordinance 258-2022, approving a development agreement (DA2021-04) for Oglund Canyon Holdings LLC; that vote was unanimous on first reading.

Why it matters: Neighbors urged the council to delay approval, saying local domestic wells have been losing yield and sometimes run dry, and they asked for broader monitoring and cumulative analysis. Proponents — the applicant’s project team and the hydrologist retained for the permit — argued the site-specific studies show the project would use a small fraction of the basin’s water storage and that mitigation measures and storage will limit local drawdown.

Residents’ testimony and demands

Hundreds of minutes of public comment focused on household water supplies in the Burns Valley area. Resident Holly Ingalls said, “Our pump is set at 111 feet… On the week of October 11, our well went dry,” describing the personal hardship of losing water. Vicky Crystal reported a neighborhood survey and said roughly 58% of returned responses documented water shortages or low pressure.

Speakers asked the council to pause approvals until the city or applicant installs a domestic-well monitoring program, clarifies drought triggers for reducing commercial water use, and accounts for nearby vineyards and other pending cannabis projects in cumulative-impact analysis under CEQA.

Applicant and technical defense

Project manager Brian Tuntak told the council the property is zoned for industrial use and said the development will include manufacturing, processing, distribution, and less than half an acre of cultivation. He noted the applicant’s agreement to mitigation measures and to pay city revenues under the development agreement.

Angie Dodd, the project hydrologist (Northpointe Consulting), presented hydrology findings and then summarized them for the council: the project’s cultivation demand is about 1,500 gallons per day (≈450,000 gallons annually), employee use about 350 gpd, for a total annual demand of roughly 580,000 gallons (≈1.8 acre-feet). Dodd said the permitted project well was tested at about 80 gallons per minute and that the site’s daily demand would be less than 2% of that well’s instantaneous capacity and a fraction of the Burns Valley basin’s usable storage. She said the project proposes about 13 days of onsite storage and conservation measures such as drip irrigation and rainwater capture.

Council response and action

Council members acknowledged the residents’ concerns and the technical evidence presented. Several members said they wanted more monitoring and assistance for residents with marginal wells but ultimately supported denying the appeal because the applicant had followed the city’s permitting requirements and the planning commission had found the mitigated negative declaration adequate.

Votes at a glance

- Resolution CC2022-03 (deny appeal AP2021-04; uphold Planning Commission approval of CUP2021-158): motion by Councilwoman Overton; second by Councilman Claffey; outcome: approved unanimously.
- Ordinance 258-2022 (first reading): approving development agreement DA2021-04 for 2185 Oglund Canyon Road: motion by Councilman Kramer; second by Councilwoman Overton; outcome: first reading approved unanimously.

Next steps

The development agreement requires a subsequent reading/adoption for final ordinance passage. Council members also directed staff and discussed the possibility of expanded well-monitoring and looking for ways to help affected residents; no new county- or state-level actions were decided at the meeting.

Sources and evidence for this account include appellant remarks, the applicant’s presentations, the hydrology memos presented by Angie Dodd, and multiple resident statements recorded during the public hearing.