Hold a public hearing to consider appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the Outdoor Properties LLC Cannabis Use Permit pursuant to the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO), and determine the project denial is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject site is located at 16520 County Road 56, approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the unincorporated community of Guinda (APN: 060-080-010). (No general fund impact) (Cormier/Anderson) (Est. Staff Presentation: 10 min/ Applicant 5 min)

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on May 8, 2025, to consider Planning Staff’s recommendation to deny a Cannabis Use Permit request to allow issuance of a cannabis cultivation license for up to one acre of canopy and a self-distribution license for Outdoor Properties LLC (“Outdoor Properties”). The Planning Commission denied the Cannabis Use Permit with a unanimous vote of 7-0-0. On May 30, 2025, the project applicant, Thomas Christy (project proponent), filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors (Attachment A). In accordance with County Code Section 8-2.225, a timely filing of a notice of appeal nullifies the decision of the Planning Commission, whose decision shall serve as a recommendation to the Board. 

Based on events over the last several years, detailed below, staff has significant concerns that Outdoor Properties can conduct cannabis operations in compliance with the Cannabis Licensing Ordinance, Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, and state law. Staff has carefully reviewed the issues raised in the appeal and recommends that the Board deny the appeal. Details of the project can be reviewed in the May 8th Planning Commission staff report, which is included as Attachment E and summarized below. 

BACKGROUND

Outdoor Properties applied for a Cannabis Use Permit in December 2022 to request the issuance of a cultivation license for up to one acre of cannabis canopy and issuance of a self-distribution license. The project is located on a relatively flat ±20-acre Agricultural Intensive (A-N) zoned parcel, located approximately 1,000 feet southwest of the unincorporated community of Guinda. The on-site cannabis operations consist of a total of 18 greenhouses—eight greenhouses are 2,880 sf each and ten greenhouses are 5,040 sf each. In addition to the cannabis-related uses and structures, the property contains an on-site well and septic system, single-family residence (currently unoccupied), barn, shed and outbuildings, and an irrigation pond. Approximately five acres are developed for cannabis uses and the remaining 15 acres contain the home site and ancillary buildings, and open land.

The project site was first licensed for cannabis cultivation in 2017 as KAM Gardens, Inc. In 2018, the entity transitioned from KAM Gardens to Outdoor Properties LLC. Outdoor Properties cultivated up to one acre of cannabis canopy on-site from 2018 to late 2024 under State and County licenses. The Outdoor Properties cultivation license expired on March 31, 2025. Section 8-2.1404(B) of the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CLUO) allows Existing Licensees who applied for a Cannabis Use Permit by December 16, 2022, to seek license renewal and continue to operate with a validly issued license through March 31, 2025, so long as their application is pending in the use permit process. Therefore, Outdoor Properties is prevented from seeking license renewal without an approved Cannabis Use Permit. No cultivation or other cannabis-related uses may occur on the property unless a Cannabis Use Permit is approved. 

In the May 8th Planning Commission staff report, staff described the compliance history of the property owner and applicant, which, when taken together, informed staff’s decision to recommend denial of the Cannabis Use Permit to the Planning Commission. Staff identified eight significant compliance-related items. The applicant corrected several of the items just prior to the May 8th Planning Commission hearing. It is noted that the Planning Commission unanimously voted to deny the Cannabis Use Permit, even with the information that several of the items had been corrected just prior to the public hearing. The eight compliance-related items presented to the Planning Commission are listed below. Updates on the status of these items since May 8th are provided in italics.

On May 30, 2025, Thomas Christy, project applicant, timely appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors. In the appeal, Mr. Christy acknowledged concerns associated with previous operations at the site and proposes to incorporate lessons learned and implement “robust measures to mitigate potential negative impacts, including enhanced security protocols, transparent communication channels, and a commitment to environmental best practices.” The appellant’s full proposal, named the “Guinda Reactivation Plan,” is presented in the notice of appeal in Attachment A, and summarized below, followed by staff’s response of each item. 

A. Sound
Appellant stated that modifications have been made to greenhouse fans to reduce decibels by eight percent and will install controllers on exhaust fans to further reduce decibel rating. Appellant also proposes to design and prototype new fans for efficiency and noise reduction, and plant trees to create a “tree wall” to further reduce noise. The appellant acknowledges that the generator was used as a main source of power and will reactivate utilities and only use the generator for emergencies and power surges. 

Staff Response: Many of the complaints received from the public regarding the Outdoor Properties cultivation site and comments received on the use permit application noted a high-pitched grinding sound from greenhouse fans and equipment. Staff is supportive of modifications to fan equipment to reduce sounds; however, staff is unable to verify if modifications were indeed made to the greenhouse fans and how the reduction in decibels was measured, as no documentation was provided. In December 2022, staff advised the applicant to submit a noise survey prepared by a qualified professional so the results could be analyzed in the application review process. Outdoor Properties commissioned a noise survey in January 2023, but the final survey was not transmitted to the County until December 23, 2024, despite multiple requests from staff. Staff was informed that the applicant had not paid the remaining balance to the noise consultant, so the survey was withheld until final payment was made in December 2024. It is noted that the noise survey was conducted at a time when the diesel generator was not operable. Therefore, it is possible that noise levels could have been higher than what was measured. The applicant has stated that they will no longer use the generator as a permanent power source (the CLUO prohibits the use of a generator as a permanent power source). 

B. Smell 
Appellant proposes to use carbon filters in dry spaces for post-harvest production. Appellant also plans to plant trees to create a green barrier and install an organic enzyme spray on the exit point of exhaust fans. Appellant asserts that previous Ground Earth Air Recirculation Subsystem (GAT system) to mitigate smell and humidity cannot be used due to the flood irrigation on a neighboring property.

Staff Response: Many of the complaints received from the public regarding the Outdoor Properties cultivation site and comments received on the use permit application noted strong cannabis odors emitting from the property. The Cannabis Unit followed response protocols and performed odor measurement using an olfactometer for odor complaints where the complainant identified the odor as persistent. The Cannabis Unit never received an odor reading that reached or exceeded the dilution-to-threshold ratio of seven parts clean or filtered air to one-part filtered odorous air at the property line of the site. Therefore, no enforcement actions were taken as the odor readings were not determined to be persistent (exist for three consecutive days within any two-week period at or exceeding the 7:1 dilution-to-threshold ratio). It is important to note that the potential for cannabis odors to occur is likely and was considered a significant and unavoidable impact in the CLUO EIR. Staff is supportive of the use of carbon filters in processing/production areas. 

C. Lights
Appellant stated that battery backups for all (light) controllers are installed on all greenhouses and proposes to plant trees to create a green barrier. Appellant stated that the new management team will only use one greenhouse for vegetative growth and 24/7 onsite staff will manage any light pollution due to malfunctions. 

Staff Response: Staff is unable to verify if battery backups for light controllers have been installed on all greenhouses. It is noted that the CLUO requires all exterior lighting to be operational, full cut-off, shielded, and downward facing, and lighting inside indoor and mixed light operations (i.e., greenhouses) must be fully controlled so that minimal or no light escapes. 

D. Traffic 
Appellant states that traffic will be routed through “Grange entrance on Hwy” and proposes conscious driving practices per security protocol. Appellant also proposes hours of “MONDAY – FRIDAY – 8 AM – 2 PM.” 

Staff Response: Staff is uncertain what the appellant means by routing traffic through “Grange entrance on Hwy.” Staff assumes Outdoor Properties will direct employee and delivery traffic from State Highway 16 to Forest Avenue to County Road 49 to County Road 56 to access the property. Staff is also uncertain what is meant by listing hours of Monday – Friday, 8am to 2pm. Does this mean employees, deliveries, and truck trips will only occur between these hours, or does it mean that cannabis activities will only occur between these hours?  

E. Communication
Appellant proposes a phone number that rings back to all members of “Guinda Team” starting with onsite resident. Appellant also proposes to become member of Grange and attend monthly meetings, and sponsor a neighborhood association newspaper. 

Staff Response: It is noted that the appellant proposes to provide a phone number to nearby residents, which is a requirement of the CLUO. The CLUO requires permittees to provide an operable method of communication to neighbors within 1,000 feet of the property line with a local or on-site responsible party having prompt access to the site/operation/activities. The appellant does not state how Outdoor Properties will respond to calls. The CLUO requires permittees to respond to legitimate neighbor contacts within one business day. Staff has not confirmed there is currently an onsite resident.

F. Economic Revitalization 
Job Creation: Appellant states that the reactivated farm will create jobs in cultivation, processing, and potentially distribution. 

Increased Tax Revenue: Appellant states that legal cannabis operations generate significant tax revenue at the local and state levels, which can be reinvested in essential public services, such as schools, infrastructure, and public safety. 

Support for Local Businesses: Appellant states that the farm will require supplies and services, creating opportunities for local businesses to thrive, and that the increased economic activity in the area is likely to attract new businesses and customers. 

Diversification of the Local Economy: Appellant asserts that relying on a single industry can leave a community vulnerable to economic downturns and that a legal cannabis farm will diversify Capay Valley’s economic base, creating greater stability and resilience. 

Staff Response: Staff notes that the appellant provides general information on how the cannabis industry may benefit the County and local community. Staff finds the appellant’s statement regarding increased tax revenue to be disingenuous. Outdoor Properties has failed to report and/or pay cannabis taxes for the following quarters: Q3 and Q4 (FY 2022/2023); Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 (FY 2023/2024); and Q1, Q2, and Q3 (FY 2024/2025). Further, Outdoor Properties failed to make timely property tax payments for tax years 2023 and 2024, and a 2022 supplemental tax bill. These delinquent property tax payments were made just prior to the May 8, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. The appellant’s past cannabis cultivation tax and property tax payment record are troubling and not compliant with the requirements of the CLUO. 

G. Responsible Operations and Community Integration
New Management Team- Local Expertise and Community Commitment: Appellant states that the new management team will ensure environmentally sound and efficient farming methods and guarantee operational efficiency, security, and adherence to all regulations, including a transparent and compliant supply chain. The appellant states that the new management team is invested in building trust, fostering a collaborative relationship with their neighbors, and that their presence ensures that the farm’s leadership is directly accountable to the community and deeply invested in its prosperity.  

Strict Regulatory Compliance: Appellant states they are committed to operating in full compliance with all state and local regulations governing cannabis cultivation and distribution, and that the operational plan will prioritize security, environmental sustainability, and responsible agricultural practices. 

Reduced Black Market Activity: Appellant states that legalizing and regulating cannabis cultivation helps to displace the illicit market, which is often associated with crime and lack of quality control. 

Community Partnership: Appellant states they are committed to being a responsible and contributing member of the Capay Valley. 

Research and Innovation: The notice of appeal states, “Research and development in agricultural techniques and the therapeutic applications of cannabis.” [Staff is unclear if appellant is proposing to conduct research and development onsite, or if this is a general statement about the cannabis industry]

Staff Response: Staff notes that the appellant provides general information on how the new management team will right the ship. The appellant asserts that the new management team will be responsive to community concerns, ensure compliance with all regulations, will be a responsible and contributing member of the Capay Valley. Outdoor Properties has been non-responsive to County requests throughout much of the Cannabis Use Permit application process and has largely ignored County requests to respond to community concerns. It was not until the weeks and days prior to the May 8, 2025, Planning Commission hearing, that Outdoor Properties attempted an outreach effort to neighbors and paid delinquent property taxes. On the evening of May 7, the night before the Planning Commission, Outdoor Properties provided a letter to staff and the Planning Commission responding to the compliance history raised in the Planning Commission staff report. Lastly, the appellant makes a general statement that the legal and regulated cannabis industry helps to displace the illicit market. This is confounding since Outdoor Properties has not reported nor paid cannabis cultivation taxes in the past three years. The non-reporting of cannabis cultivation sales makes it much easier for product to enter the illegal market, which creates an uneven playing field for those that do follow the law and creates health risks for consumers as most product entering the illegal market is not tested. Staff does not have evidence that product grown by Outdoor Properties has entered the illegal market, but without the checks and balances of proper sales reporting, it is a legitimate concern. Additionally, Outdoor Properties received a Notice of Violation in October 2024 for failure to comply with track and trace requirements. This egregious violation demonstrates that Outdoor Properties is either inept in its operational duties or is blatantly seeking ways to skirt the regulatory process.

RECOMMENDATION

Outdoor Properties has acknowledged that its current management is severely lacking and proposes that all deficiencies will be corrected and the operations will be fully compliant with local and state regulations under new management. At the March 8 Planning Commission hearing, Yarrow Kubrin, Director of Community Affairs for Outdoor Properties, attempted to place some of the blame for Outdoor Properties’ compliance issues on county and state regulations. When deliberating staff’s recommendation for denial, several Planning Commissioners made clear that they did not appreciate attempts to lay blame on the County and pointed out that the CLUO is a mechanism to level the playing field for all cannabis operators. Commissioners also agreed it was a shame that management decisions and changes did not occur sooner to build trust and establish a track record of compliance, and expressed frustration that the Commission was being asked by the applicant to trust that things will be better moving forward. Cannabis Use Permits run with the land. Staff and the Planning Commission were tasked with evaluating the performance and compliance of Outdoor Properties, and do not evaluate projects based on a hope that things improve. 

When reviewing the aggregate compliance history and overall lack of responsiveness by the property owner and Outdoor Properties business entity, there is significant concern that the project would be operated in compliance with the Cannabis Licensing Ordinance, Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, and state law. Staff concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny the appeal. Should the Board decide to grant the appeal and decide not to deny the permit at this time, the Outdoor Properties Cannabis Use Permit would go back to staff to process the application for consideration by the Planning Commission at a later date. 

CEQA
CEQA does not apply to a public agency’s decision to reject or disapprove of a project. See CEQA Guidelines § 15270. The purpose of this rule is to allow agencies to disapprove of projects on the merits without incurring the costs of a full CEQA review. Should the project be sent back to staff to process the application, a CEQA review will be conducted for consistency with the CLUO Environmental Impact Report.

Staff consulted with the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Department of Financial Services, Building Division, Public Works Division, Environmental Health Division-Cannabis Unit, various agencies and interested parties, and has received input from the Office of County Counsel.