Clearlake panel recommends approval of Oglund cannabis processing and distribution project despite water concerns

The Clearlake Planning Commission on Dec. 13 voted to recommend approval to the City Council of a commercial cannabis operation at 2160 Oglund Canyon Road (APN 010-044-21), after staff described a substantially reduced project and the applicant confirmed there is no cultivation proposed.

Staff said the project would be implemented in two phases: Phase 1 would remodel an existing 960‑sq‑ft metal building; Phase 2 would construct a new 5,000‑sq‑ft building containing offices, processing, packaging and secure storage for distribution and nonvolatile extraction manufacturing (no cultivation or nursery activity). Staff told commissioners the original project was larger and included cultivation and greenhouses, but the applicant has reduced the scope. Staff also said they circulated the initial study for a 30‑day review and received agency comments (Lake County Environmental Health, California Department of Cannabis Control, Special Districts and the State Water Board) that staff said have been addressed through mitigation measures and conditions of approval.

Planning consultant Richard Knoll, representing Oglund Estates Holdings LLC and applicants Garrett Burdick and Brian Pensac, told the commission the proposal is much smaller than originally submitted and reiterated that cultivation is not part of the current application. He listed technical materials submitted to the city, including groundwater hydrology and water‑availability reports, odor control and stormwater plans.

Commissioner Stewart pressed staff for numbers on how many cannabis projects are approved versus operating in the city and for an estimate of total water use if all approved projects were operating at permitted levels, saying community concerns persist about cumulative water demand during an ongoing drought. A resident, Dave Hughes, told commissioners he had retained a water expert to analyze cumulative impacts in the Burns Valley watershed and said the CEQA materials did not adequately handle cumulative water impacts; he also referenced a figure in the packet (he cited "102,000 gallons" in a report) and asked for fuller analysis. The chair closed public comment after the resident continued speaking past the three‑minute limit.

The commission moved to adopt Resolution PC 2022-22 recommending approval of CUPs and a mitigated negative declaration to the city council for the commercial cannabis operation. Roll-call returned four ayes and one nay (Commissioner Stewart voted no); the motion passed.

Staff noted that the California Department of Cannabis Control provided comments and that many agency concerns were addressed through mitigation measures. The commission discussed water coordination and noted that connection and conservation requirements will be handled between the applicant and the local water district as part of permitting.