Board approves appeal in part for cannabis cultivation permit amid concerns over tree removal and water use

The board considered proposed findings of fact and a final decision in the appeal of a major‑use permit (PL 26,357) for a cultivation project, a topic that drew sustained public comment and disagreement among supervisors. County counsel said the posted Exhibit E was an earlier draft and that the findings document incorporated amendments made after the Aug. 4 hearing, but some supervisors said they had expected to see the finalized permit language before voting. "What I have seen in the past is what is agreed to verbally by the board or by the planning commission as a condition never actually makes it in the condition of approval that goes to CEQA," public commenter Tom Lasik said, urging the board to require redlined exhibits and clearer 'substantial conformance' language.

Supervisor Sabatier asked about a line saying 71 oak trees would be removed and sought assurance that tree removal would be limited to dead, dying and diseased trees as identified by an arborist; county counsel confirmed the findings included limits to dead/dying/diseased trees identified by a certified arborist. Other public commenters raised wildfire‑risk, hydrology and CEQA concerns. After debate the board approved the findings of fact and decision and granted the appeal in part; both motions passed on 3–2 votes.