6.10 25-96111:00 A.M. - Consideration of Request for Board Direction regarding Establishment of Ad Hoc Committee for Development of Agriculture Road Standards
Forming an Ad Hoc Committee at this time would be inappropriate because it would rely on the framework of Resolution 2019-124, which is materially flawed. Rather than perpetuate the deficiencies of that resolution, the Board should rescind Resolution 2019-124 and direct staff to apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (PRC §4290 / SMFSR) based on the actual use and function of roads, rather than on their administrative labels.
Please vote NO on creating any ad hoc or staff-selected “working group” on agricultural road standards.
Road and evacuation standards are life-safety rules. On single-egress corridors across Lake County, families, first responders, and heavy trucks use the same narrow geometry at the same time. Geometry is destiny: lane width, grades, curve radii, sight distance, and truck turning paths are safety thresholds, not preferences. Decisions of this magnitude must be made on the public record, not behind closed doors.
Forming a committee on the basis of Resolution 2019-124 risks repeating a material error. Residents ask that the Board rescind 2019-124 and have staff apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 CCR §1270 et seq.) according to how a corridor is actually used, not how it is labeled.
Where a corridor serves both hauling and residents, it is a shared-use evacuation route and must be treated that way. We want evacuation corridors and access routes to meet California’s State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 CCR §1270 et seq.), and PRC §4291 defensible space maintained around structures. I’m concerned the practical effect of an ad hoc would be to delay fixing a dangerous corridor while new high-trip businesses continue to be approved. On a single-egress road, that combination is not safe. Can the County confirm, on the record, that no additional high-trip approvals will be granted on such corridors until they meet the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations for access/egress?
Transparency is safety. The community needs agendas, minutes, and a searchable record so everyone hears the same facts at the same time and can verify who said what and why.
Please vote no on Item 6.10 and make clear that evacuation standards will be set publicly and applied evenly, for the health, safety, and well-being of the community.
6.10 Regarding forming an Ad Hoc committee. The committee should not be formed because it would be premised on a resolution—Resolution 2019‑124—that is materially flawed. We recommend the rescinding of Resolution 2019‑124 and direct staff to apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (4290/SMFSR) based on actual road use, not road labels.
Forming an Ad Hoc Committee at this time would be inappropriate because it would rely on the framework of Resolution 2019-124, which is materially flawed. Rather than perpetuate the deficiencies of that resolution, the Board should rescind Resolution 2019-124 and direct staff to apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (PRC §4290 / SMFSR) based on the actual use and function of roads, rather than on their administrative labels.
Please vote NO on creating any ad hoc or staff-selected “working group” on agricultural road standards.
Road and evacuation standards are life-safety rules. On single-egress corridors across Lake County, families, first responders, and heavy trucks use the same narrow geometry at the same time. Geometry is destiny: lane width, grades, curve radii, sight distance, and truck turning paths are safety thresholds, not preferences. Decisions of this magnitude must be made on the public record, not behind closed doors.
Forming a committee on the basis of Resolution 2019-124 risks repeating a material error. Residents ask that the Board rescind 2019-124 and have staff apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 CCR §1270 et seq.) according to how a corridor is actually used, not how it is labeled.
Where a corridor serves both hauling and residents, it is a shared-use evacuation route and must be treated that way. We want evacuation corridors and access routes to meet California’s State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (Title 14 CCR §1270 et seq.), and PRC §4291 defensible space maintained around structures. I’m concerned the practical effect of an ad hoc would be to delay fixing a dangerous corridor while new high-trip businesses continue to be approved. On a single-egress road, that combination is not safe. Can the County confirm, on the record, that no additional high-trip approvals will be granted on such corridors until they meet the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations for access/egress?
Transparency is safety. The community needs agendas, minutes, and a searchable record so everyone hears the same facts at the same time and can verify who said what and why.
Please vote no on Item 6.10 and make clear that evacuation standards will be set publicly and applied evenly, for the health, safety, and well-being of the community.
6.10 Regarding forming an Ad Hoc committee. The committee should not be formed because it would be premised on a resolution—Resolution 2019‑124—that is materially flawed. We recommend the rescinding of Resolution 2019‑124 and direct staff to apply the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations (4290/SMFSR) based on actual road use, not road labels.