Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Cultivation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sigler Springs cannabis permit draws intense public opposition; commission deadlocks, triggering appeal
Summary
A contentious hearing over a proposed 3‑acre commercial cannabis cultivation permit at Sigler Springs (PL‑26‑115) produced sustained public comment over groundwater, access across a gated easement and cultural resources. The commission deadlocked on the staff recommendation, producing a tie and an automatic appeal to the Board of Supervisors.
Commissioners spent multiple hours on June 11 examining a renewed major‑use permit application from Sigler Springs North LLC for a commercial cannabis operation in the Cobb Mountain area. The applicant reduced the scope of the project from four acres to three acres and added a 20‑acre no‑development buffer and drought‑response measures; staff recommended approval with mitigation measures in a draft mitigated negative declaration.
Applicant consultant Trey Cheryl said the canopy was reduced during review and that the project includes a drought‑management plan that cuts canopy if the U.S. Drought Monitor index signals severe or extreme drought in June of a given year. He described regenerative agriculture practices, on‑site water storage, reduced grading compared with earlier designs, and the use of solar pumps.
Neighbors and representatives of the Mountain of Attention (Adidam Holy Domains) told the commission the record does not show adequate information on access across a gated easement, the adequacy of water supplies and site evacuation for wildfire. Mountain of Attention counsel Mo Getta Zuk asked, “Do we know enough today to approve this project?” and urged commissioners to delay action until outstanding access and water questions are resolved.
Independent consultants and public witnesses raised groundwater concerns. Geologist Gordon Throp told the commission that fractured‑rock aquifers common in the area may require long‑duration pump testing to establish sustainable yield, and that short tests can overstate available capacity. The applicant submitted an analysis by EBA Engineering concluding that the on‑site well and water‑storage program could meet demand; the applicant also pointed to historic site use and annual water monitoring data.
Public safety and fire‑risk witnesses urged greater scrutiny because the site sits in a very high fire‑severity zone and uses narrow local roads for access. Tribal notification under AB 52 was completed and Middletown Rancheria participated in consultation; staff reported tribal mitigation measures had been incorporated into conditions.
After extended discussion the commission voted on the staff recommendation and produced a tie. Under county ordinance a tie is treated as an effective denial at that hearing and is automatically appealed to the Board of Supervisors. The record shows strong disagreement among commissioners and multiple requests from the public for further study of water testing duration, formalized access easements and evacuation planning.
What’s next: The matter will be routed to the Board of Supervisors on automatic appeal; staff and the applicant will prepare materials for the board hearing and parties said they intend to continue technical work on groundwater monitoring and access documentation.
