[{"_1":2,"_104":-5,"_105":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,84,94],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},"mediaId",6055699,"mediaKeyId","3317166-b0b551e5141c5fa5869ded2835cc2561","parentId",3317166,"title","Siskiyou supervisors split over state fire-hazard map; no ordinance adopted","audioSeconds",1883,"startMs",1889000,"endMs",5451,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317166-b0b551e5141c5fa5869ded2835cc2561&start=1889&end=5","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6055699/Siskiyou-County/California/Siskiyou-supervisors-split-over-state-fire-hazard-map-no-ordinance-adopted","mediaUrl","author","Siskiyou County, CA","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors debated whether to adopt a state-provided Local Responsibility Area (LRA) fire hazard severity zone map and an implementing ordinance on May 6, 2025, but took no action after a motion failed for lack of a second.

The discussion centered on whether the county should adopt the state fire marshal's recommended zones — a step the board is required to complete within 120 days of receiving the map under Government Code section 51179. County legal staff warned the deadline is June 9, 2025, and said the adopted ordinance must be transmitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption.

Supporters of immediate adoption said having an adopted map preserves access to state disaster-risk and home-hardening grant funding. “I don't wanna take that risk for my community,” a supervisor said, arguing that grant eligibility and project funding depend on a recognized local map.

Opponents and several public speakers, including representatives of volunteer fire crews and property owners, said the state map is inaccurate at parcel scale and would hurt residents’ ability to obtain or afford insurance. “This map is wrong,” a public commenter said, arguing the designation does not account for decades of local fuels reduction and home-hardening work.

Cal Fire and county staff described implementation requirements tied to the designations, including defensible space and building-code certifications under Government Code section 51182 and related building-code provisions. County staff and the county counsel said adopting the map triggers responsibilities for inspections, certification, and coordination with insurers; county staff said they are working with CAL FIRE to bridge capacity gaps for inspections and certifications.

Speakers called for three main actions: 1) asking the state for more time to review and adjust maps, 2) seeking clearer crediting of local fuels-reduction work so property owners receive insurance or regulatory credit, and 3) securing funding and staffing to perform inspections and home-hardening assistance. County counsel explained that failure to adopt an ordinance when a statute uses “shall” can expose the county to a writ of mandate forcing adoption.

After extended public comment and board discussion, a motion to proceed with adoption was made but received no second; the motion died and no ordinance was adopted. Board members directed staff to pursue further engagement with the state fire marshal, explore options to refine or annotate the map where possible, and identify funding and staffing needs for inspections and homeowner assistance.

The board also discussed CEQA implications and noted any ordinance would likely require a public hearing with publication deadlines that limit the county’s calendar; staff said the earliest feasible public-notice schedule would require actions on May 20 (first reading) and June 3 (second reading) to meet the June 9 deadline, but county counsel cautioned publication timing may make that impracticable.

The debate underscored tensions between complying with a statutory deadline and addressing local concerns about map accuracy, implementation costs, and insurance market consequences. County staff said they will seek further dialog with the state fire marshal and the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and will identify specific requests to pursue, including an extension of the 120-day deadline and a clearer method for crediting prior fuels-reduction work.

The board recorded no formal ordinance action on the map at the May 6 meeting; the county may still consider first-reading action at upcoming meetings if publication timing and legal requirements can be met.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","05/06/2025 - 9:00am\tBoard of Supervisors' Meeting Mtg1","oneSentenceSummary","The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors debated whether to adopt a state-provided Local Responsibility Area fire hazard severity map and related ordinance on May 6, 2025, but no ordinance was adopted after a motion failed for lack of a second.","taxTitle","Siskiyou County, California","taxId",26840,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":50,"_51":81,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":82,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":83,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6055685,"Interim probation chief briefs supervisors on two state bills affecting restitution and county populations",155,127000,282000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317166-b0b551e5141c5fa5869ded2835cc2561&start=127&end=282","/articles/6055685/Siskiyou-County/California/Interim-probation-chief-briefs-supervisors-on-two-state-bills-affecting-restitution-and-county-populations","Stacy Jackson, interim chief probation officer for Siskiyou County, informed the board on May 6, 2025, about two pieces of state legislation under consideration and provided copies of position letters from the Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC).

Jackson described AB 1213, introduced by Assemblyman Stefani, as legislation intended to “put victims first in the matter of restitution.” Jackson said the bill highlights restitution for victims and aims to refocus justice-system practice toward victim needs.

She also described SB 357 (introduced by “Senator Minjvar” as spoken in the meeting), noting that the bill targets counties with populations over 3,500,000 and therefore would not apply to Siskiyou County if enacted. Jackson said she provided the briefing for the board’s information and was not asking the board to take action. She added that the county’s incoming probation chief will continue to keep the board apprised of relevant legislative developments.

Jackson provided paper copies of the CPOC letters to the clerk for distribution to the board.","Interim Chief Probation Officer Stacy Jackson informed the board about two state bills — AB 1213 (victim restitution focus) and SB 357 (targeted at large counties) — providing copies of Chief Probation Officers of California (CPOC) letters; Jackson did not ask the board to take action.",{"_33":85,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":86,"_41":87,"_43":88,"_45":89,"_47":90,"_49":50,"_51":91,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":92,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":93,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6055689,"Board adds emergency resolution for Lake Siskiyou general store repairs to flood district agenda",207,537000,744000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317166-b0b551e5141c5fa5869ded2835cc2561&start=537&end=744","/articles/6055689/Siskiyou-County/California/Board-adds-emergency-resolution-for-Lake-Siskiyou-general-store-repairs-to-flood-district-agenda","On May 6, 2025, the Board of Supervisors, meeting in its capacity as the Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, voted to add an off‑agenda urgency item: a resolution declaring an emergency under Public Contract Code section 22050(b) and delegating authority to the district executive director to enter into emergency public-works contracts to repair the roof and main office of the general store at Lake Siskiyou Camp Resort, located at 4239 West A. Long Road.

Staff told the board the repairs cannot await the next regular meeting (May 20, 2025) and requested the item be added under the Government Code urgency provision cited in the staff report. The board moved, seconded, and then—acting as the flood district board of directors—approved adding the item by the required supermajority. Directors present voted aye by roll call.

County staff said the requested resolution would delegate contracting authority to the district executive director for emergency repairs so that necessary work may proceed before the next regular meeting. The staff report identifies Public Contract Code section 22050(b) as the legal authority for emergency public-works contracting.

The board’s action at the May 6 meeting was limited to adding the item to the flood district agenda as an urgency matter; the transcript records that the resolution itself was placed on the flood district agenda for immediate consideration. The transcript does not include the subsequent vote on the resolution's substance at this meeting; staff will return with contract details and recommended authorization if the board proceeds with the emergency contract.","The Board, acting as the Siskiyou County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, voted to add an off-agenda emergency resolution delegating authority to execute emergency public-works contracts to repair the roof and main office of the Lake Siskiyou Camp Resort general store.",{"_33":95,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":96,"_41":97,"_43":98,"_45":99,"_47":100,"_49":50,"_51":101,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":102,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":103,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":67,"_71":72,"_73":72},6055694,"Siskiyou supervisors vote to initiate Bailey Hill Road abandonment proceedings",1166,686000,1852000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3317166-b0b551e5141c5fa5869ded2835cc2561&start=686&end=1852","/articles/6055694/Siskiyou-County/California/Siskiyou-supervisors-vote-to-initiate-Bailey-Hill-Road-abandonment-proceedings","The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 on May 6, 2025, to initiate proceedings to consider full abandonment of Bailey Hill Road, a roughly 1.28-mile paved roadway that runs adjacent to Interstate 5.

Planning staff described the legal process under the Streets and Highways Code: the county may initiate abandonment proceedings and must make specific findings, including conformity with the Siskiyou County general plan, effects on non-motorized transportation, and whether the roadway is unnecessary for present or prospective public use. Staff said their initial review found conflicts with the general plan and noted the road appears necessary for present and prospective public use in some circumstances, including emergency detours when I‑5 is closed.

Staff provided preliminary data: Caltrans 2023 annual average daily traffic (AADT) on I‑5 adjacent to Bailey Hill Road is 8,400; annual county revenue associated with the section was estimated at about $2,400 while five‑year average maintenance spending was about $1,710. Public Works staff estimated deferred maintenance and a required chip-seal project at roughly $50,000–$60,000, and a bridge on Bailey Hill Road was described as being in fair-to-poor condition with a very rough repair estimate of about $700,000.

Property owner Steve DeClerk told the board he and his family are the only property owners on the road and offered to assume responsibility for maintenance and the bridge if the county abandons the roadway. “We will take full responsibility and save the county some money so they won't have to chip seal every 10 years,” DeClerk said.

Public Works Director Tom Meaney confirmed procedural next steps: if proceedings are initiated, the planning commission will hold a public hearing, perform the analysis required by statute (including CEQA review), and then may recommend that the Board of Supervisors approve or deny abandonment. Staff said they would likely evaluate a facilities exemption under CEQA but that further analysis is required.

On a motion to initiate proceedings, the board voted in favor (four ayes, one no). The board’s direction authorizes staff to proceed with the planning‑commission phase of the abandonment process and to return with the analysis, public hearing scheduling, and any recommended findings. No final abandonment decision was made at the May 6 meeting.

The action begins a statutory process; staff emphasized the need for further study of public‑use implications, infrastructure disposition (including the bridge), funding impacts (loss of gas‑tax revenue), and CEQA compliance before any final board decision.","After a request from a private property owner, county staff outlined legal findings and costs related to abandoning 1.28 miles of Bailey Hill Road; the Board voted to initiate proceedings to consider abandonment and further study impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Siskiyou supervisors split over state fire-hazard map; no ordinance adopted

Interim probation chief briefs supervisors on two state bills affecting restitution and county populations

Board adds emergency resolution for Lake Siskiyou general store repairs to flood district agenda

Siskiyou supervisors vote to initiate Bailey Hill Road abandonment proceedings