Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Decision topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake County grants modified permit for Siegler Springs North after wetlands, water and tree concerns; vote 3-2
Summary
The Lake County Board of Supervisors granted in part the appeal of the Planning Commission denial for the Siegler Springs North cannabis cultivation project, approving a revised permit with added conditions — including limiting tree removal to dead, dying or diseased trees and requiring a recorded easement before operation — after a 3-2 vote.
The Lake County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 on Aug. 4, 2026 to grant in part an appeal and approve a modified major use permit for Siegler Springs North, a proposed outdoor commercial cannabis cultivation project near Kelseyville. County counsel summarized the board's motion as a grant in part of appeal PL-26-357, with directions to modify permit conditions and prepare findings of fact.
County counsel read the motion on the record: "your board may, make a motion to grant the appeal in part and modify the permit subject to the specified conditions that was outlined by CDD staff," and staff enumerated amendments that must be met before operation, including updated site plans, confirmation of any required timberland conversion with Cal Fire, designation of tree removal limited to dead/dying/diseased trees (verified by an arborist or registered professional forester), and a requirement that access be via a legally recorded easement. The board's final vote was announced: "That carries 3 2." (Chair Rasmussen).
The vote followed several hours of public comment and technical testimony focused on groundwater availability, evacuation routes and traffic safety, oak-tree removal, and the legal sufficiency of the recorded easement providing access to the site. Supervisors who voted in favor said the applicant had reduced project impacts (including cutting canopy from four acres to three acres and proposing a 20-acre no-development buffer) and that additional conditions and reporting requirements would mitigate remaining risks. Opponents had urged denial or a full environmental impact report, citing independent hydrogeologists' critiques and feared cumulative groundwater impacts.
The board directed staff to prepare the written findings and to incorporate the revised conditions into the permit: updated site plans reflecting trees to be removed, pre-operation verification of easement title, confirmation with Cal Fire if a timber conversion permit is required prior to ground disturbance, and monitoring/reporting requirements for hydrology per Article 27 and the project's mitigation measures. The motion to grant the appeal in part also instructed staff to return the finalized permit and findings to the board.
The decision does not immediately authorize full operation: the permit is conditioned on completion of the listed prerequisites. The board recorded the action as: motion to grant appeal PL-26-357 in part and modify Major Use Permit PL-26-115 and associated Initial Study/MND PL-26-115 IS-2118; outcome: approved (3-2).
