Chair Rasmussen, Vice Chair Pyska and Supervisors,

With respect, I disagree with the findings of fact and decision for this appeal. The Planning Commission correctly denied Major Use Permit (PL-25-71) and the associated Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for Pasta Farms 3. The project record did not support the findings necessary for permit approval.

As your Board considered this appeal de novo, it assumed the role of the Planning Commission and made its own independent findings. In doing so, your Board had to determine not only whether the project satisfied Lake County's permit requirements under Articles 27 and 51, but also whether the environmental review complied with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These are separate legal requirements, and both must be satisfied before the project can be approved.

Recent events further underscore the importance of these findings. The Lyons Fire in Lakeport and other fire evacuations in the County serves as a reminder that wildfire evacuation, emergency access, roadway adequacy, and public safety are not theoretical concerns but immediate realities for Lake County residents. These issues deserved careful consideration before approving additional development that would increase activity at this site.

Article 51 Findings
Article 51 requires your Board to find that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, morals, or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, nor detrimental to nearby property or to the general welfare of the County.

During the Planning Commission hearing, neighboring property owners identified numerous concerns directly related to these required findings, including roadway safety, wildfire evacuation, increased traffic on narrow dirt roads, noise, groundwater availability, cannabis odor, and impacts on the quiet character of the surrounding area. These concerns were supported by firsthand testimony from neighboring residents and property owners.

While the Conditions of Approval contain mitigation measures addressing some of these issues, the proposed conditions do not adequately resolve many of the concerns raised by the public. Consequently, substantial questions remain as to whether your Board can rationalize the affirmative findings required under Article 51.
 
CEQA Findings & Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that mitigation measures be fully enforceable through permit conditions or other legally binding mechanisms and that they be capable of reducing environmental impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Several of the proposed mitigation measures rely upon future implementation without clearly defined performance standards or objective criteria for determining success. Where mitigation depends upon future actions, CEQA requires measurable standards by which compliance can be evaluated and enforced.

The current record does not adequately demonstrate that all identified impacts have been reduced to a less-than-significant level through enforceable mitigation.

Wildfire, Emergency Access and Traffic
The proposed expansion includes additional processing activities that will increase employee trips, service traffic, and operational activity at the site. These additional vehicle trips should be evaluated not only for routine traffic impacts but also for their effect on emergency access and wildfire evacuation.

The project is served by narrow rural roads that already present challenges for emergency response and evacuation. During a wildfire, delays caused by increased traffic or inadequate roadway geometry may significantly increase risks to residents, emergency responders, and project employees.

This summer’s fire evacuations demonstrate that wildfire evacuation is not merely speculative. CEQA requires environmental review to consider foreseeable environmental effects, including impacts associated with emergency access and evacuation where supported by substantial evidence.

Woodland and Biological Resources
The project proposed removal of approximately 362 healthy trees, primarily mature oaks, to accommodate approximately 1.8 acres of additional development associated with cannabis processing. Tree removal was one of major issues that commissioners cites as a reason for denying the permit, but General Counsel’s findings of fact does not acknowledge this. Only during the appeal, did the applicant eliminate tree removal from the project description. Your Board expressed misgivings about the planned tree removal during the appeal.
Although the environmental document proposed replacing removed trees with acorns and saplings, replacement planting does not immediately replace the ecological functions provided by mature oak woodland.

Removal of mature trees results in the immediate loss of:
• wildlife habitat;
• nesting and roosting opportunities;
• food sources, including acorns;
• mature canopy;
• watershed protection;
• erosion control;
• carbon sequestration;
• shade and microclimate regulation; and
• other ecosystem services that have developed over decades.

The environmental document should have also consider habitat fragmentation. Even where only a relatively small acreage is directly developed, removal of hundreds of mature trees may fragment otherwise contiguous woodland habitat, altering wildlife movement, edge conditions, and long-term habitat quality.

Replacement planting should therefore be evaluated not merely by the number of trees planted but by whether the proposed mitigation will restore the biological functions and habitat values lost through removal of mature woodland. Appropriate mitigation should include objective performance standards, survival requirements, replacement obligations for failed plantings, and long-term monitoring sufficient to demonstrate successful restoration.

Project Design
The relatively large number of mature trees proposed for removal to accommodate a comparatively small development footprint suggests that opportunities may exist to redesign or relocate portions of the processing area to substantially reduce impacts to mature woodland habitat.
The environmental record did not adequately explain whether such project modifications were evaluated or why they were determined to be infeasible. Because one of CEQA's fundamental purposes is to avoid or reduce environmental damage through changes in project design where feasible, this may become an issue should the applicant resume tree removal.
 
Cumulative Impacts
The environmental review appeared to evaluate the proposed expansion primarily as an individual project. CEQA also requires consideration of cumulative impacts resulting from incremental effects when viewed together with closely related projects.
In this instance, the combined effects of Pasta Farms I, Pasta Farms II, and the proposed Pasta Farms 3 expansion should be evaluated collectively, particularly with respect to groundwater demand, traffic, wildfire evacuation, woodland resources, biological habitat, and neighborhood compatibility.

Public Interest Considerations
Balancing economic development with protection of neighboring properties and environmental resources is one of your Board's most important responsibilities.

While the applicant may emphasize the economic benefits of the project, economic benefit alone should not outweigh unresolved concerns regarding health, safety, environmental protection, and neighborhood compatibility.
There are concerns about the County's administration of its cannabis program and the continuing lack of transparency regarding the program's overall fiscal performance, including Community Development Department budget overruns and the relationship between cannabis revenues and departmental expenditures. Although these issues are not CEQA issues, they remain appropriate considerations for your Board when evaluating whether continued expansion of the program serves the County's broader public interest.
The concerns expressed by Adidam, Mountain of Attention, also deserved careful consideration. The sanctuary's internationally recognized mission depends upon preserving the quiet, natural character of the surrounding landscape. Increased industrial activity, traffic, noise, and continued woodland loss may adversely affect not only neighboring property owners but also one of Lake County's unique cultural and economic assets.

Similarly, the County's continuing proclamation since May 2022 of a local emergency due to pervasive tree mortality recognizes the importance of maintaining healthy tree cover for watershed protection, wildlife habitat, wildfire resilience, and environmental health. Approval of a project requiring removal of 362 healthy mature trees should therefore be supported by a compelling demonstration that impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent feasible.
 
Conclusion
Fortunately, your Board was able to influence the elimination the project’s planned tree removal. Unfortunately, the current record does not adequately demonstrate that the findings required under either Article 51 or CEQA can be made. Accordingly, the Planning Commission's decision should have been upheld.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Margaux Kambara
Lake County Resident