The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted 3‑1 to continue a public hearing on an appeal of the Planning Commissions approval of a proposed Ag Forest Wood Processing Bioenergy Project at 755 East State Highway 20 in Upper Lake (APN 004‑010‑04) to Dec. 16 at 10:30 a.m.

Community Development Director Maria Turner told the board the state had responded to county questions but then asked additional questions, and she "request[ed] a continuance of 1 month" to continue dialogue with state officials.

Why it matters: the parcel was purchased with state funding tied to the Middle Creek flood‑damage reduction and ecosystem restoration project, and the Department of Water Resources (DWR) questions center on grant conditions requiring conservation easements on acquired parcels. Lake County Water Resource Director Pawan Apadhyay told the board that "it is for certain that we need to put a conservation easement on that parcel," and said the timing of recording easements is ambiguous. Apadhyay warned that failing to meet grant conditions could "lead up to losing the funding or the future funding or the current one we have, and that does include the interest payment back payment for the grant we have."

Appellant Larry Khan, who appealed the Planning Commission approval, urged caution. Khan said he preferred the hearing not be "rushed," that "it takes a few months" to resolve the outstanding questions, and indicated he supported additional time for review. An attorney speaking for Khan told the board that the answers sought from the state were "more complicated than just, will you give us a yes or no on this lease," and warned the county could be required to return grant money with interest if required easements and zoning to open space are not recorded.

Several supervisors expressed frustration at the pace of state responses and at what one called a lack of an in‑house legal review of the contract provisions driving the issue. County counsel told the board that the contract provision in question is often construed so that "where" means "upon" acquisition, but recommended reviewing the full contract and consulting the state for a definitive interpretation. The board discussed Exhibit C of the grant agreement, which the appellant noted includes a timeline showing a 36‑month period to place easements.

Public commenters urged the board to clarify whether the county has jurisdiction to act if the states contract limits sale or lease of the land without state consent and cautioned that environmental review (the transcript referenced "SECRA") may be required before final action.

Outcome and next steps: the board voted to continue the hearing to Dec. 16 at 10:30 a.m.; the motion carried 3‑1. Supervisors and staff directed county counsel and relevant departments to review the full grant contract language, follow up with the state for clarification about timing and encroachment permissions, and bring information back at the continued hearing. No final decision on the permit or the appeal was made at this meeting.

Details cited at the hearing: the proposal is tied to a state‑funded Middle Creek restoration project; speakers referenced the requirement that "an appropriate easement or other title restriction providing for floodplain preservation, agricultural and or wildlife habitat conservation for the subject property in perpetuity" be conveyed. The project site was repeatedly identified as 755 East State Highway 20, Upper Lake (APN 004‑010‑04).

The continuance scheduling and staff directions leave open the possibility that the board could rule on the appeal at the Dec. 16 hearing if staff and county counsel provide the requested contract interpretation and state guidance or, if uncertainty remains, pursue further steps consistent with the grant agreement and applicable environmental review rules.