Lake County planning commission denies Lake Cocoa Farms cannabis permit over access, water and fire-safety concerns

The Lake County Planning Commission voted June 25 to deny a major-use permit for Lake Cocoa Farms, rejecting a proposal by Juan Gamino to establish up to 205,800 square feet (about 4.72 acres of canopy) of outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation and a Type 13 self-transport distribution license at 3417 and 3547 Hendricks Road.

Associate Planner Trish Turner told commissioners the proposal covered roughly 228.77 acres in combined parcels and that staff’s environmental recommendation was to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (IS-20-72) and approve the permit with conditions. But commissioners and neighbors pressed staff and the applicant for clearer proof of legal, adequate access from the county-maintained road, more complete hydrology and well information, and assurance that required fire-safety standards would be met.

“The easement was recorded in 1908 and verified through title companies,” consultant Trey Sherrill said of the private access route, adding the applicant had met with neighbors and proposed paving the first 40–60 feet to reduce dust. “We’re not proposing to alter the easement; we would use and maintain it per the recorded rights,” he said.

Several nearby residents and commenters disputed that account. Rosa Hartzog, whose property contains the easement, told the commission she had not been approached and opposed road alterations that could require removal of century-old walnut trees on her land. “This decision affects me directly and my family,” she said.

Public commenter Margo Kambara and others urged the commission to require verifiable legal access from a county road under Article 27 of the county code before approving a permit that would support commercial-level cultivation. Kambara also said a traffic study was needed and criticized staff’s conclusion on vehicle-miles-traveled thresholds.

Commissioners flagged inconsistencies they said were missing or unclear in the packet: staff acknowledged an attachment omission of the recorded easement and said that was inadvertent. Commissioners also sought clarification about three wells analyzed in the hydrology report and whether the project’s water use and potential impacts to neighboring domestic wells had been fully addressed. Staff said the canopy footprint is 4.7 acres while the cultivation area may be larger and that engineered well-site plans appear in the hydrology appendix.

Tribal consultation under AB 52 was discussed. Staff said the county initiated AB 52 notifications in 2020, the Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians requested consultation in August 2020, and the county concluded a good-faith effort in 2025 after follow-up attempts produced no response.

Fire-safety input factored heavily: the record includes a CAL FIRE response stating the site is within a very high wildfire hazard severity zone and that Cal Fire “does not support any delayed application of minimum fire safe standards,” referencing PRC 4290 requirements. County staff and one commissioner discussed whether road improvements required by PRC 4290 could be phased or must be in place before certain processing facilities are built; staff suggested a staged approach limited to outdoor cultivation with processing deferred until 4290 compliance is secured.

After extended deliberation about three options—continuing for additional information, splitting or phasing the project, or voting—the commission considered motions. Commissioner (speaker 4) moved to deny the project as presented; Commissioner (speaker 9) seconded. The chair called the vote; two commissioners voiced “Aye,” and the commission denied the permit as presented. Staff noted the applicant preferred an outright vote rather than another continuance.

The denial means the applicant may pursue appeal rights under county rules; earlier in the hearing staff and counsel had noted that some vote outcomes and tied votes can trigger automatic appeal routing to the Board of Supervisors.

The commission’s deliberations repeatedly centered on access and the absence of the recorded easement in the packet, hydrology and cumulative water-use concerns, unresolved neighbor objections about impacts and tree removal on private property, CAL FIRE’s insistence on immediate fire-safe standards, and the legal limits on the commission’s authority to resolve private-easement disputes.

Next steps: staff will note the denial in the project file and the applicant may appeal to the Board of Supervisors or reapply with additional documentation addressing access, hydrology, traffic and fire-safety requirements.