6c 26-06149:35 AM - Consideration of Major Use Permit PL-25-71 (Pasta Farms 3) / 1833 DS, LLC (Peter Simon) and Mitigated Negative Declaration for amendment to use permit, expansion from 20 acres to a maximum of 30.11 acres of outdoor commercial cannabis canopy, Type 4 Nursery, and Type 13 Distribution, Self-Transport Only license located at 10750, 10417, and 10145 Seigler Springs North Road, 10800, 10833 9864, 9954, 11000 Diener Drive, and 9954 Salmina Road (APNs 115-004-05, 115-004-01, 011-069-48, 115-004-08, 115-001-21, 115-001-29, 115-004-07, 115-006-18,115-005-03, and 011-047-06).
RE: Major Use Permit PL-25-71 (Pasta Farms) / Objections to Conditions of Approval
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Seigler Springs Firewise Community to formally object to the proposed approval of Major Use Permit PL-25-71 regarding the Pasta Farms application. My comments reflect both local, basin-specific experience and a broader professional background as a core member of the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network and a member of the Lake County COAD. As such, I evaluate this permit not merely for its local impact, but against the professional standards of disaster preparedness and fire-adapted community best practices. While the Pasta Farms project sits outside our formal Firewise boundary, the cumulative risk it introduces to our shared evacuation routes and the basin’s acoustic landscape makes this a regional safety issue, not a local one.
While the provided Conditions of Approval attempt to address standard regulatory requirements, they are insufficient to mitigate the specific environmental and safety risks posed by this industrial-scale project within our basin.
The current permit relies on generic boilerplate conditions that fail to address the topographical reality of Seigler Springs or the cumulative traffic and safety impacts inherent to this facility.
1. Failure to Address Cumulative Acoustic Impacts and Topographical Amplification
The noise thresholds established in Condition C.2 (55 dBA day / 45 dBA night) are based on standard noise ordinances that assume flat, open topography. This is a scientific failure when applied to the Seigler Springs basin. Our basin functions as a natural acoustic amphitheater, causing low-frequency mechanical noise—specifically the industrial hum of ventilation and HVAC systems essential to a 30-acre canopy—to reflect and intensify, impacting residential pockets far beyond the immediate property line.
The current permit lacks a site-specific acoustic study that accounts for this basin geometry. By relying on a blanket dBA measurement, the County is effectively ignoring the reality of the cumulative mechanical drone that already plagues our rural baseline. Failing to require a targeted noise study that accounts for the "amphitheater effect" is a procedural error under CEQA, as it fails to evaluate the project's impact within the existing industrial baseline.
2. Vague Fire Suppression Infrastructure and Operational Reliance
Condition L.4 requires a dedicated fire suppression tank but provides no substantive detail regarding capacity or efficacy. It mandates a 2.5" coupling for fire district use but fails to mandate a specific water capacity scaled to the project’s 30.11 acres of canopy. Without a defined volume (e.g., in gallons) tied to specific fire-flow requirements for an operation of this magnitude, the requirement is an administrative placeholder rather than a safety measure.
Furthermore, Condition J.5(b) defers the determination of access road suitability to the "applicable fire district" without requiring the County to review the project-specific traffic load. An emergency egress analysis must account for the reality that during a fire event, the road must accommodate both residents and the project’s industrial workforce simultaneously. Deferring this to the fire district without an environmental review of the traffic impacts constitutes a failure to conduct a proper emergency egress assessment.
3. Inadequate Wildfire Mitigation Measures
The wildfire measures (Section L) are largely reactive rather than proactive. For example, while the permit prohibits construction during "Red Flag" warnings (Condition L.1), it provides no mechanism for active monitoring of relative humidity or wind speeds at the site to ensure that operations—not just construction—are curtailed during high-risk weather. Given that the project involves 30.11 acres of cannabis cultivation, the risk of fire ignition from operational equipment is high. Relying on state-level Red Flag alerts is insufficient; the permit should require an on-site meteorological monitoring station and a mandatory halt to all high-risk operational activities (tarp-pulling, ventilation maintenance, and motorized transport) once local relative humidity drops below critical thresholds.
Action Requested
We request that the Commission continue this permit until the following are provided:
A Site-Specific Acoustic Impact Study that models the basin’s topography and the low-frequency noise profile of the proposed facility, ensuring noise does not exceed limits at the property line under the "amphitheater" conditions.
An Emergency Egress & Traffic Load Analysis that explicitly demonstrates that Seigler Springs North Road can accommodate the simultaneous evacuation of the workforce and residents during a fire event, vetted by the SLFPD.
Verified Infrastructure Specifications for all fire suppression, including minimum water capacity requirements explicitly tied to the project’s square footage.
Respectfully submitted,
Magdalena Valderrama Hurwitz
Committee Chair, Seigler Springs Firewise Community
My concerns about this project include:
• The impact on our already limited water supply, including the proposal to use an additional 35 million gallons of water each year.
• The loss of the rural character that makes this area unique and worth preserving.
• Increased traffic, congestion, and safety concerns for residents and families who use these roads every day.
• The removal of 362 mature oak trees and the long-term impact on the surrounding oak woodland habitat.
• Whether the environmental review fully addresses the project's impacts on the community and local ecosystem.
• Whether the scale and nature of the project are truly compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
• Increased fire risk and concerns about emergency access and evacuation during wildfire events.
Date: June 9, 2026
From: Magdalena Valderrama Hurwitz, Chair
Seigler Springs Firewise Community
To: Lake County Planning Commission
RE: Major Use Permit PL-25-71 (Pasta Farms) / Objections to Conditions of Approval
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing on behalf of the Seigler Springs Firewise Community to formally object to the proposed approval of Major Use Permit PL-25-71 regarding the Pasta Farms application. My comments reflect both local, basin-specific experience and a broader professional background as a core member of the Fire Adapted Communities Learning Network and a member of the Lake County COAD. As such, I evaluate this permit not merely for its local impact, but against the professional standards of disaster preparedness and fire-adapted community best practices. While the Pasta Farms project sits outside our formal Firewise boundary, the cumulative risk it introduces to our shared evacuation routes and the basin’s acoustic landscape makes this a regional safety issue, not a local one.
While the provided Conditions of Approval attempt to address standard regulatory requirements, they are insufficient to mitigate the specific environmental and safety risks posed by this industrial-scale project within our basin.
The current permit relies on generic boilerplate conditions that fail to address the topographical reality of Seigler Springs or the cumulative traffic and safety impacts inherent to this facility.
1. Failure to Address Cumulative Acoustic Impacts and Topographical Amplification
The noise thresholds established in Condition C.2 (55 dBA day / 45 dBA night) are based on standard noise ordinances that assume flat, open topography. This is a scientific failure when applied to the Seigler Springs basin. Our basin functions as a natural acoustic amphitheater, causing low-frequency mechanical noise—specifically the industrial hum of ventilation and HVAC systems essential to a 30-acre canopy—to reflect and intensify, impacting residential pockets far beyond the immediate property line.
The current permit lacks a site-specific acoustic study that accounts for this basin geometry. By relying on a blanket dBA measurement, the County is effectively ignoring the reality of the cumulative mechanical drone that already plagues our rural baseline. Failing to require a targeted noise study that accounts for the "amphitheater effect" is a procedural error under CEQA, as it fails to evaluate the project's impact within the existing industrial baseline.
2. Vague Fire Suppression Infrastructure and Operational Reliance
Condition L.4 requires a dedicated fire suppression tank but provides no substantive detail regarding capacity or efficacy. It mandates a 2.5" coupling for fire district use but fails to mandate a specific water capacity scaled to the project’s 30.11 acres of canopy. Without a defined volume (e.g., in gallons) tied to specific fire-flow requirements for an operation of this magnitude, the requirement is an administrative placeholder rather than a safety measure.
Furthermore, Condition J.5(b) defers the determination of access road suitability to the "applicable fire district" without requiring the County to review the project-specific traffic load. An emergency egress analysis must account for the reality that during a fire event, the road must accommodate both residents and the project’s industrial workforce simultaneously. Deferring this to the fire district without an environmental review of the traffic impacts constitutes a failure to conduct a proper emergency egress assessment.
3. Inadequate Wildfire Mitigation Measures
The wildfire measures (Section L) are largely reactive rather than proactive. For example, while the permit prohibits construction during "Red Flag" warnings (Condition L.1), it provides no mechanism for active monitoring of relative humidity or wind speeds at the site to ensure that operations—not just construction—are curtailed during high-risk weather. Given that the project involves 30.11 acres of cannabis cultivation, the risk of fire ignition from operational equipment is high. Relying on state-level Red Flag alerts is insufficient; the permit should require an on-site meteorological monitoring station and a mandatory halt to all high-risk operational activities (tarp-pulling, ventilation maintenance, and motorized transport) once local relative humidity drops below critical thresholds.
Action Requested
We request that the Commission continue this permit until the following are provided:
A Site-Specific Acoustic Impact Study that models the basin’s topography and the low-frequency noise profile of the proposed facility, ensuring noise does not exceed limits at the property line under the "amphitheater" conditions.
An Emergency Egress & Traffic Load Analysis that explicitly demonstrates that Seigler Springs North Road can accommodate the simultaneous evacuation of the workforce and residents during a fire event, vetted by the SLFPD.
Verified Infrastructure Specifications for all fire suppression, including minimum water capacity requirements explicitly tied to the project’s square footage.
Respectfully submitted,
Magdalena Valderrama Hurwitz
Committee Chair, Seigler Springs Firewise Community
I'm concerned about water usage in an area that is prone to fire and drought.