Lake County supervisors continue appeal hearing on Ag Forest bioenergy project to June 17

Lake County—oard of Supervisors voted to continue an appeal hearing tied to approvals for the Ag Forest Wood Processing Bioenergy Project in Upper Lake to June 17, 2025, at 1 p.m.

The continuance was requested by the appellant nd supported by county staff. Community Development Director Maria Turner told the board staff supports the request so supervisors and the public have more time to review the large and complex record. The board approved the continuance by motion; the clerk announced the motion carried 5-0-0.

The hearing concerns Appeal PL 25-22 (AB 24-06) of the Planning Commission pproval of Major Use Permit UP 203-05 and Initial Study IS 23-10 for the Ag Forest Wood Processing Bioenergy Project at 755 East State Highway 20 in Upper Lake (APN 004-010-04). Before taking public comment the board asked anyone intending to testify to be sworn in.

Maria Turner, Community Development Director, summarized staff—acking for the continuance: "...the department did receive a request from the appellant's representative for a continuance. While reviewing that request, we came to the conclusion that we actually do support that request. And so staff requests a continuance of this item to June 17 at 1PM." Turner said staff believes supervisors need more time to review the materials.

Thomas Jordan, who identified himself as staff of Scottsdale Energy Corporation, the project applicant, asked the board to deny the continuance and hear the appeal on the scheduled day. "I formally ask that your commissioner that your supervisors not honor the request for a continuance," Jordan said, noting the Planning Commission heard the project in October and December and that the application process began in May 2023.

Several residents and representatives told the board they supported the continuance, citing incomplete Public Records Act responses and unresolved questions about a funding agreement with the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Barbara Morris said an attorney's letter dated May 13 had just reached the county and that records requested under the Public Records Act had not been produced: "Her request for documents from the county, her PRA request was never fulfilled and we are still waiting for documents. And for that reason we feel like we need more time to review the documents that will be forthcoming."

Morris also told the board she reported to DWR that "the original funding agreement with Department of Water Resources . . . has not been fulfilled by the county." She cited specific commitments allegedly unmet, including an anticipated conservation easement and well capping tied to the funding agreement.

Marsha Birch, who said she represents appellant Larry Khan and neighbors, told the board her first public-records request was submitted on March 14 and that county staff were still working to locate and produce records. "I do wanna clarify that staff that did assist me with the public records request . . . really did the best they could," Birch said, and she urged the board to grant time for the records to be produced and reviewed.

Tara Morris, another speaker for the appellant side, described inconsistencies across the project documents and asked the board to grant the continuance so supervisors could review evidence and letters provided by neighbors.

Supervisor Spatier said he supported the continuance because the record is extensive and the project affects his district: "I fully support staff's recommendation to continue to a later date. The project has a lot of information that I think colleagues might wanna look into, and digest. And it's in my district . . . That's where I stand." Vice Chair Crandall also voiced support after reviewing the continuance request.

County staff counsel (Lloyd) advised the board that the only matter before the board at that time was whether to grant the continuance and that the board could set parameters on public comment related only to the continuance request.

After public comment the board member moved to continue the public hearing to the date and time certain of June 17, 2025, at 1 p.m.; another member seconded the motion. The chair called the vote and the clerk announced, "Motion carries 5 0 0." The board will reconvene the appeal on that date to consider the underlying permit, initial study, and related documents.

The continuance pauses final supervisory action on approvals associated with Major Use Permit UP 203-05 and Initial Study IS 23-10 until the June 17 hearing. Speakers and staff repeatedly framed the current item as a procedural question about scheduling and records production rather than a forum for reopening substantive debate on the project itself.

The board recessed for lunch and scheduled its next item for 1 p.m., when the continued hearing will be heard if the item remains on the agenda.