Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors, tribes and experts press board to require EIR for Sigler Springs North cannabis project
Summary
At a de novo appeal of a Planning Commission denial, neighbors, tribal representatives and independent hydrogeologists criticized the proposed Sigler Springs North commercial cannabis project for water, oak-tree removal and evacuation risks; staff recommended upholding the appeal and approving a 3‑acre permit with mitigation, but the board paused the item for further discussion.
The Board of Supervisors opened a de novo appeal on the Sigler Springs North project — a proposed major use permit for up to 3 acres of outdoor cannabis canopy with associated infrastructure — and heard several hours of staff presentation, applicant testimony, expert analyses and public comment.
Community Development staff described the project site, conditions of approval and mitigation (including an oak mitigation and monitoring plan), and estimated cultivation water use of about 4.9 acre‑feet per year. Applicant Forrest Alley described concessions including reducing canopy from 4 to 3 acres, increasing on‑site storage to 30,000 gallons, a 20‑acre no‑development buffer and regenerative practices. The project team’s hydrologist said a six‑hour well test and conservative recharge calculations show sufficient supply and proposed ongoing monitoring.
Opponents — including the Mountain of Attention Sanctuary, independent hydrogeologists retained by neighbors, local stewardship groups and multiple residents — urged the board to require a full environmental impact report (EIR). Alexander Powell, representing the Sanctuary, said independent reviews found "significant data gaps and data errors" and argued a six‑hour pump test and assumptions about daily recovery were insufficient for a fractured volcanic aquifer. Multiple speakers raised evacuation-route and wildfire evacuation safety concerns, the loss of mature oak trees (applicant proposes removal of about 71 black oaks with a 3:1 replanting ratio), and a disputed access easement.
Applicant consultants defended their methods, described monitoring and drought-triggered reductions in canopy (to 2.5–2.0 acres under certain drought levels), and said mitigation and a proposed timberland‑conversion condition could be satisfied with Cal Fire review. After extensive board questions and comments — with several supervisors citing water and tree‑removal concerns — the applicant elected to reassess project details; the board agreed to trail the item to continue the discussion later in the day.
