Clear Lake council agrees to explore annexing about 300 acres on Ogland/Oglund Canyon Road amid community concerns

City staff and the property owners presented a request asking Clear Lake to initiate annexation of about 300 acres at 2050 and 2122 Ogland/Oglund Canyon Road so those parcels can be developed under city zoning.

City Manager Flora summarized the process the city would need to follow: the council would need to consider amending the city’s sphere of influence, pre-zone the parcels and provide a general-plan designation before LAFCO could act. Planning consultant Richard Noll, representing the owners, described early concepts for an industrial mixed-use plan and said some “nodes” of development could be feasible for utilities and road access. Mr. Noll noted the project would require CEQA review and other preconditions.

Property owner Brian Pencak said the land could accommodate “a hundred thousand square foot building for cold wine storage” or other industrial uses and that he and investors were eager to work with the city. Pencak told the council, “We have no current plans to do cannabis,” and later said he was "done with cannabis." The consultant and staff reminded the council that certain industrial zoning categories could permit cannabis operations in the future, so zoning choices matter.

Residents raised multiple concerns during public comment. A written statement from Vicky Crystal (read into the record) questioned the owner’s past conduct and urged a pause until more information is shared publicly. Neighbors described past permit and enforcement issues on the site, raised worries about water and aquifer impacts, and recommended the city show that similar development cannot be accommodated inside existing city limits before proceeding with major annexation—advice echoed by the LAFCO chair in public comment.

Council members expressed a mix of support and caution. Several councilmembers said adding the property to the sphere of influence and beginning annexation steps would give the city more local control over uses and zoning; others urged careful review of costs, tax-sharing negotiations with Lake County and a realistic timeline for CEQA and pre-zoning. The council provided direction to staff to investigate the annexation, begin sphere-of-influence work, and return with cost, timeline and zoning recommendations for further deliberation; no final annexation ordinance or LAFCO application was filed at the meeting.