File #: 20-1377    Version: 1 Name:
Type: Zoning Item Status: Passed
File created: 10/13/2020 In control: Planning and Building
On agenda: 10/20/2020 Final action: 10/20/2020
Title: 1:30 p.m. - Maple Creek Investments, LLC Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Special Permit to Allow 27,025 Square Feet of New Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation
Attachments: 1. Staff Report, 2. Attachment 1 - Resolution and Findings.10.15[1][2].pdf, 3. Attachment 2 - Appeal filed by Maple Creek Investments, 4. Attachment 3 - PC Staff Report, Supplemental and Public Comments.pdf, 5. Attachment 4 - Public Comment.pdf, 6. Attachment 5 - Applicant Response to Public Comment PC Packet.pdf, 7. Attachment 6 - Transcript of 8.6.2020 PC Hearing Submitted by Applicant.pdf, 8. Public Comment COB, 9. Public Comment K4.pdf
To: The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors

From: Planning and Building Department

Agenda Section: Time Certain Matter

SUBJECT:
title
1:30 p.m. - Maple Creek Investments, LLC Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of a Special Permit to Allow 27,025 Square Feet of New Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation
end

RECOMMENDATION:
Recommendation
That the Board of Supervisors:
1. Open the public hearing and receive the staff report, testimony by the applicant/ appellant and public;
2. Close the public hearing;
3. Adopt the resolution (Resolution 20-__) (Attachment 1) which has the Board do the following:
a. Consider the Addendum along with the Environmental Impact Report certified for the CCLUO per section 15162(c) of CEQA Guidelines; and
b. Make the findings to grant the appeal submitted by Maple Creek Investments, LLC and to approve the Special Permit;
c. Grant the Appeal;
d. Approve the Special Permit; and
e. Direct Planning Staff to file a Notice of Determination in compliance with CEQA.
Body

SOURCE OF FUNDING:
The Appellant has paid the appeal fee associated with filing this appeal.

DISCUSSION:

Executive Summary

This is an appeal of the Humboldt County Planning Commission's August 6, 2020 denial of a Special Permit application to allow 27,025 square feet of new outdoor cannabis cultivation. The applicant/appellant believes the Planning Commission denied the project without identifying reasons for the denial or providing an itemized resolution of the denial, that the Commission did not conduct a hearing free of bias and fair under constitutional due process principles, whereas the applicant followed the law and did everything requested by the county, and the Planning and Building Department recommended this project for approval. The applicant/appellant also notes the negative precedent the Planning Commission would set relative to permitted growers, and economic development and the growth of the cannabis industry.

The Planning Commission...

Click here for full text