Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Cultivation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission ties on Pasta Farms expansion after concerns about oak removal, water and road safety
Summary
A proposal to expand Pasta Farms’ outdoor cannabis canopy from 20 to 30.11 acres and add a nursery and processing building provoked sustained public comment about removal of 362 oak trees, groundwater and narrow access roads. The commission’s votes produced procedural uncertainty; county counsel said a unanimous result was required for the motions as presented and announced that the outcome was not approved — the applicant has a seven‑day appeal window.
The Planning Commission reviewed a combined major‑use permit amendment for Pasta Farms (PL‑25‑71) on June 11 that would merge earlier permits and expand outdoor canopy to 30.11 acres, add a 40,000‑sq‑ft nursery and a 39,900‑sq‑ft processing building on a roughly 602‑acre ownership parcel.
Staff said the project would remove and convert an established oak woodland in the immediate nursery/processing footprint, identifying 362 oak trees for removal and proposing an oak‑mitigation plan that replaces removed oaks at a 3:1 ratio and requires seven years of maintenance. Staff’s water availability analysis (EBA Engineering) estimated annual project demand at 107.37 acre‑feet and concluded the site’s groundwater in storage (6,593 acre‑feet) would be sufficient and avoid overdraft under stated assumptions.
Applicant Peter Simon told the commission the farm has operated on the property since 2020, that the existing 20‑acre operation used about 13.5 million gallons of water in the prior year, and that proposed efficiencies, on‑site storage and solar pumping would limit incremental impacts. Simon also pointed to existing large water tanks and said project changes would increase water available for wildfire suppression on demand.
Many neighbors, representatives of the Mountain of Attention sanctuary and independent experts urged more study. Witnesses described the sanctuary’s cultural significance, reported that a neighboring well ran dry three years ago, and urged longer pump tests and more robust cumulative groundwater analysis. Fire safety witnesses and local residents said narrow local roads and seasonal traffic patterns raise evacuation and noise concerns.
The commission debated the staff recommendation and took votes on the mitigated negative declaration and the major use permit. Commissioners later were advised by county counsel that unanimity was required for the motions in the form presented; counsel concluded the motions did not pass. County staff confirmed the applicant or any interested party may file an appeal within seven calendar days.
What’s next: The applicant may appeal the outcome to the Board of Supervisors within seven days. If the appeal is filed, the board will review the administrative record, including technical hydrology reports, oak‑mitigation plans and conditions.
