Clearlake planning commission approves commercial cannabis project at 2250 Oglund Canyon Drive despite resident water concerns

The Clearlake Planning Commission voted to approve multiple conditional use permits and to recommend a mitigated negative declaration and development agreement for a commercial cannabis operation at 2250 Oglund Canyon Drive (APN 01004419).

John Lane, a California state professional geologist retained by the applicant, presented a groundwater hydrology addendum that revised site water‑use estimates downward from an initial 511,400 gallons per year to 366,385 gallons per year for full build‑out and 227,660 gallons per year if only 10,000 square feet of cultivation is developed. Lane noted the Burns Valley groundwater basin (referred to in the report as Berne/Burns Valley) has an estimated usable storage capacity of about 1,400 acre‑feet and that the subject site alone would represent roughly 0.07% of that usable storage. "Due to the decrease in expected annual water use at the subject site, this estimation of annual water demand for the site will also decrease," Lane said.

Applicant representatives and consultants said the project reduced canopy from 17,500 to 10,000 square feet, will use greenhouse cultivation (which they described as more water‑efficient than outdoor cultivation), and proposed metering and groundwater‑level monitoring with quarterly reports. Consultant Steven Lou said the applicant will "meter both the usage as well as a groundwater level monitoring system to track the groundwater levels and file quarterly reports" and that cultivation would stop for the season if the project hits the estimated water‑use threshold.

Several residents who live in the Burns Valley watershed urged denial or a pause on approvals until more monitoring and a groundwater management plan exist. David Goolsby, who said he lives in Burns Valley, asked the commission to "reject the mitigated negative declaration and issues permit application" and requested a moratorium on additional agriculture in the Burns Valley watershed until better monitoring exists. David Hughes and others cited perceived shortcomings in the hydrology reports — missing well logs, incomplete pump‑test data and insufficient mapping of nearby wells — and warned of a potential tipping point for local domestic wells.

City staff and legal counsel said the commission received additional hydrology information and the addendum was prepared to address cumulative‑impact questions raised at prior hearings. Staff noted the addendum and the hydrology reports and recommended including the addendum language in the mitigated negative declaration. After deliberation, Chair Wilson moved to approve Resolution PC 2022‑10 approving the CUPs and to adopt Resolution PC 2022‑11 recommending approval of a mitigated negative declaration and the development agreement to the City Council, including the hydrology addendum. The motions were seconded and passed by roll call (multiple 'Aye' votes recorded and at least one 'No').

The commission recorded conditions and said the addendum would be included in the environmental finding; staff also recommended that monitoring and mitigation language be part of the mitigated negative declaration. Several commissioners expressed concern about groundwater uncertainty and asked staff and applicants to continue additional monitoring and reporting.

The commission’s actions forward the project to the City Council as a planning decision with required monitoring and mitigations called out in the commission’s motion.