Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Roads And Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors ask staff to study truck restrictions after CHP officer flags safety on Climax, Ridge roads
Summary
After two recent commercial‑vehicle rollovers on narrow local roads, the Board of Supervisors asked staff to research declaring certain county roads non‑truck routes or imposing weight limits and to return with options for signage, enforcement and cost estimates.
Supervisor Logan Carnell asked the board to consider restricting heavy through‑truck traffic after a California Highway Patrol commercial vehicle officer described tight lanes and recent rollovers on Climax Road and Upper Ridge Road.
The request came after CHP Officer Brian Morse told supervisors he drove the roads and measured lane widths of about 9 to 10 feet on Climax Road and counted “32 separate turning movements” on a three‑mile stretch while staying in lane. Morse said two commercial‑vehicle rollovers on Climax Road in recent months each closed the road for several hours and required CHP and county resources to clear loads of hay, bark and mulch.
Morse said the state allows truck combinations up to 65 feet (or doubles up to 75 feet) and a combined weight of 80,000 pounds on many local roads, but the tight curvature and narrow lane widths on Climax and parts of Ridge Road make off‑tracking and lane encroachment a regular hazard. He noted Climax also serves as a school bus route and said the alternative via State Route 88 adds roughly one and a half miles and about a minute for drivers who avoid the smaller roads.
Why it matters: supervisors and residents said much county roadway damage is driven by through‑traffic that does not stop locally but uses short local cut‑throughs. Board members framed the question as whether the county should reclassify selected local roads as restricted to through commercial traffic, or impose weight limits, and how to handle legitimate local deliveries or terminals located on those roads.
Public commenters pressed two themes: auditing recent county hazard tree projects and ensuring contractors meet licensing and prevailing‑wage requirements, and the need to clarify who may legally use restricted roads for local deliveries. Resident Gary Gladden asked the board to make audit results public and to verify contractors’ payrolls; others urged county staff to research state code limits and enforcement options.
Board direction and next steps: the board did not adopt an ordinance. Instead members asked staff to research the statutory and administrative process to (1) declare or redefine truck routes, (2) evaluate weight‑limit or posted‑restriction options for specific roads (members named Climax Road and segments of Ridge Road and suggested Michigan Bar Road as another candidate), (3) produce cost estimates for signage and enforcement, and (4) compile examples from other rural counties. Staff said they would return with legal and operational options and pricing for a pilot approach.
What was not decided: supervisors did not pass any weight‑limit ordinance or alter traffic rules at the meeting. Several members emphasized allowance for legitimate local traffic (deliveries, septic, emergency vehicles) and asked that any restriction recipe include a mechanism for local exemptions.
Ending: The board directed staff to prepare a formal recommendation and obtain examples from other counties; no timeline for return was specified during the discussion.
