How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Just after 2 p.m. Wednesday the Lake County Sheriff’s Office issued a mandatory evacuation order for residents living in and around Hidden Valley Lake and Jerusalem Valley areas of Lake County due to the approach of the LNU Lightning Complex, which has burned more than 46,000 acres in five counties.
Those under evacuation order are residents living north of Butts Canyon Road, south of Hofacker Lane to Morgan Valley Road, east of Highway 29 and west of the Lake/Napa County line.
Sheriff Brian Martin said resources are stretched thin, there is significant wind in the area, and the decision was made to issue the order after consulting with Cal Fire and the Incident Management Team.
He said shortly after 2 p.m. that evacuation sirens were to be activated in Hidden Valley Lake.
Martin urged people not to panic or rush, and that they had adequate time to evacuate if they started preparing to leave immediately.
Those in need of shelter are asked to proceed to a temporary evacuation point that has been set up at the former Pearce Field airport off of Highway 53 in Clearlake.
Due to COVID-19 restrictions, Martin said the ability to shelter people will be very limited, so he urged evacuees to use other sheltering options if available.
Evacuees are asked to stay in their vehicles and wear masks when they arrive at the temporary evacuation point. A shelter is being established and they will be directed to the shelter by temporary evacuation point staff.
Authorities urged residents in the evacuation area to immediately gather all family members, pets and essential times including medications, turn off appliances and lights, and lock homes when leaving.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Since early Monday morning, local and state firefighters in Napa County have been fighting the LNU Lightning Complex, which is composed of more than 60 fires, some less than an acre.
However, the size of the complex’s largest fires ballooned on Tuesday, reaching 32,025 acres by nightfall and threatening 1,900 structures, according to a Cal Fire report.
The complex’s biggest fires in Napa County include the 10,000-acre Hennessey fire on Hennessey Ridge Road and Chiles Pope Valley Road, east of St. Helena, which has burned one structure and two outbuildings; the 10,000-acre Gamble on Berryessa Knoxville Road, west of Brooks; the 8,000-acre 15-10 fire near Putah Creek Bridge and Berryessa Knoxville Road; the 1,000-acre Spanish fire near Spanish flat; and the 2,500-acre Markley fire near Monticello dam.
Two more fires included in the complex are in Sonoma County: the 13-4 fire west of Healdsburg, which has burned 500 acres, and the 11-16 fire north of Jenner, which is 25 acres.
As of Tuesday night, no containment had been achieved on any of those seven major fires, Cal Fire said.
Due to the approach of one of the LNU Lightning Complex’s smaller fires to the Lake County line, on Tuesday afternoon the Lake County Sheriff’s Office issued a mandatory evacuation order for the area of Reiff Road and Morgan Valley Road, south to the Lake/Napa County line.
Authorities said they set up a temporary evacuation point at the former airport property off of Highway 53 in Clearlake.
Sheriff Brian Martin told Lake County News on Tuesday evening that a fire in the LNU Complex called the Gold Mine fire was responsible for the evacuation order impacting southeast Lake County.
Martin said the fire was at the Napa-Lake County line and had been spotting.
“The good thing is, for Lake County, it’s threatening areas that are very sparsely inhabited,” he said.
Martin said his department was able to contact everyone in the evacuation area. Many expressed their desire to stay put although some did opt to leave.
If the weather holds up, the fire should have minimal impact on Lake County, Martin said.
He said he expected his agency and Cal Fire will reevaluate the situation on Wednesday morning and decide if the evacuation order should be lifted or remain in place.
In Mendocino County, Cal Fire said the Creek fire began along Highway 162 and Short Creek Road near Covelo shortly before 4 p.m. Tuesday. As of early evening, it had burned one structure and was threatening eight others, with 200 acres burned and 5-percent containment.
Cal Fire’s Mendocino Unit said it’s also working on the 62-acre 3-19 fire east of Potter Valley. It is 30-percent contained and is not threatening any structures.
At the same time, efforts are continuing to contain the August Complex, which includes at least 20 lightning-caused fires throughout the Mendocino National Forest in the Grindstone Ranger District in Glenn County.
US Forest Service officials said Tuesday night that the August Complex has burned 3,000 acres and has resulted in a closure on the M9 Road from the forest boundary west to the junction with the M4 Road for firefighter and public safety.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
The board’s vote on the final reading Tuesday was the same as it was last week – 3-2.
Supervisor EJ Crandell, who brought the ordinance to the board, was joined by Board Chair Moke Simon and Supervisor Tina Scott in passing the ordinance, with Rob Brown and Bruno Sabatier voting no.
The ordinance, which goes into effect 30 days from Tuesday’s approval, will sunset on Oct. 1, 2021, unless the board takes action to extend it.
Under its guidelines, the county’s Health Services director and Community Development director or their designees, and any official designated by the Board of Supervisors would be responsible for enforcement of violations including failure to adhere to masking, social distancing and mandated hygiene requirements, and failure to close specific business sectors when required.
While Crandell has said it emphasizes training and information to gain compliance, it includes administrative fines: up to $100 for a first violation, up to $200 for a second violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation and not more than $500 for each additional violation of the same ordinance within one year of the first violation.
Sabatier clarified during the discussion that he was not against masking. It’s his opinion that the issue is not whether the masking mandate is right or wrong, it’s about how to enforce it.
“I do not believe that adding a fine will change the behavior,” said Sabatier, who has favored taking an approach that rewards those who follow the mandate rather than being punitive.
He and Brown were the only two board members in the chambers during the meeting; Sabatier was wearing a mask, Brown was not, and they were sitting several seats apart, with each seat on the dais separated by plexiglass dividers.
When members of the public rose to speak at the podium, it was Sabatier who took on the duty of wiping the equipment down between speakers.
The process explained
Crandell said it’s been pointed out to him that people are concerned that officials will come to their homes to enforce the ordinance, which he said wasn’t intended.
Brown asked for an explanation of the process, including who ultimately would be responsible for enforcing it and how. “There’s been no discussion about that although there’s been a lot of assumptions.”
County Counsel Anita Grant explained that the enforcement officers – the directors of Health Services and Community Development, their employees or anyone the board appoints – would contact a violator and work with them, giving them not less than five days to come into compliance.
If compliance occurs, Grant said nothing further happens and the matter won’t even be on file as it will be considered an informal action.
However, if that informal action is unsuccessful, then the enforcement officer would issue a notice of citation giving another 10 days to correct that violation, Grant said. If compliance still doesn’t happen, fines could occur, but they’re not required.
“The administrative fine is permissive, it’s not a mandate. It says the enforcement officer may impose a fine,” said Grant.
There also is an appeal process in which the person receiving a notice of violation can go to the Board of Supervisors, who Grant said ultimately would decide whether to uphold, modify or dismiss the notice.
Considering budgeting and hiring, Brown said it’s likely that enforcement would start in the middle or end of October at the earliest. Simon agreed with that estimated timeline, adding that education for those not complying with the orders would still be taking place until then.
Brown questioned if people would have to worry about large gatherings like weddings being broken up. Crandell said he didn’t see anything in the ordinance that specifies that.
“It’s a legitimate fear that people have,” Brown replied.
Grant said nothing in the ordinance allows someone to go onto property without permission.
Sabatier said the county’s No. 1 issue with passing the virus is large gatherings. “We’re saying that we’re not going to do anything about that,” he said, adding he’s not sure why there is an emphasis on businesses when a small number of cases are correlated to them.
“There were changes that your board made to make clear that this was not limited to business,” Grant said, referring to actions taken last week.
Sabatier said a trigger to stop using the ordinance – like a drop in the positivity rate or number of new cases – made sense to him in showing the ordinance isn’t necessary. He said the October 2021 sunset date is very far off.
“The state has a trigger point before they take certain actions, we should have trigger points before we take certain actions,” he said.
Sabatier again offered his colleagues a tiered system to approach compliance which they again rejected, although they agreed with his request that the ordinance be brought back on Dec. 1 for review.
Brown asked Grant if the board could add Sabatier’s trigger proposal without having to hold the ordinance over again for another reading. Grant’s opinion was that the changes would be significant enough that new first and second readings would be necessary.
Public remains divided
During public comment, the board heard from several community members who were again split over the ordinance.
Haji Warf of Upper Lake spoke to the board via Zoom, noting she had been in the board chambers last week but decided not to return because half of the people in the room the last time were not wearing masks. “I did not feel safe. That statement alone should give you pause.”
She quoted a July poll that found that three out of four Americans support wearing masks to stop the coronavirus. “The silent majority will no longer allow the belligerent minority to drown out our voices,” she said.
“This conflict between science versus perceived injury to personal liberty is a very American struggle,” Warf added, noting the same battle has been fought perpetually over other issues, like seat belts.
Some of the speakers once again challenged the science used to support masking, or raised issue with discrimination against those who can’t wear them due to medical issues.
Michael Green of Lakeport offered strong support. “The delays have gone on quite enough.”
He said the ordinance is featherweight in its touch and is meant to be another tool in the Public Health officers’ toolbox. Green also questioned why people were trying to relitigate the masking policy, adding the only ones driving fear are those against the ordinance.
Green pointed out that an item on the board’s consent agenda – the county’s Wildfire Smoke Protection Policy that includes mask-wearing as a precaution – passed with “zero controversy.”
Frank Dollosso of Lakeport said people not wearing masks are being discriminated against and that the governor’s mandates didn’t appear to him to be actual laws.
Val Lancaster of Lakeport said she was met at the front door of the courthouse by a security employee who grilled her for two minutes on why she wasn’t wearing a mask. She has stated she has a medical exemption.
The ordinance and masking “is a bunch of crap,” said Lancaster.
She told the board not to be surprised if they saw a bunch of God-fearing, law-abiding citizens become God-fearing, law-abiding patriots who won’t hesitate to stand up for their Fourth Amendment right – the right against unreasonable searches – by using their Second Amendment right, referring to keeping and bearing arms.
“You three should be ashamed of yourselves,” Lancaster said, addressing Crandell, Scott and Simon.
Crandell moved the approval of the ordinance’s second reading, which ended in a 3-2 vote, with Brown and Sabatier voting no.
Crandell also moved to reassess and discuss the ordinance on Dec. 1. That motion passed 4-1, with Brown the lone dissenter.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
The council will meet virtually at 3:30 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 19.
Because of the county’s shelter in place order, Clearlake City Hall remains closed to the public, however, the virtual meeting will be broadcast live on the city of Clearlake’s YouTube Channel or on the Lake County PEG TV livestream on YouTube.
The agenda can be found here.
Comments and questions can be submitted in writing for City Council consideration by sending them to Administrative Services Director/City Clerk Melissa Swanson at
To give the council adequate time to review your questions and comments, please submit your written comments prior to 3 p.m. Wednesday, Aug. 19.
The sole agenda item Wednesday is a discussion with the goal of giving staff direction about what course to take regarding the appointment of city council members this fall.
The seats currently held by Phil Harris, Russ Perdock and Joyce Overton are up for election on Nov. 3.
Harris is not seeking reelection and so didn’t file by the initial Aug. 7 deadline, resulting in it being extended to Aug. 12.
The city reported that Overton and David Claffey, who is on the city’s marketing committee, qualified to run, but that Perdock – who also filed – failed to get the minimum 20 valid signatures, as Lake County News has reported.
City Manager Alan Flora’s report to the council explains that, because there are more available offices than candidates, state elections code gives the city the option to appoint these candidates in lieu of holding an election or to appoint a qualified individual to the third council seat in lieu of holding an election.
“However, Government Code 36512(d) prohibits an appointment that would result in a majority of councilmembers serving by way of appointment. For this reason, the city cannot fill the three available council seats via appointment. It must hold an election on at least one seat, and it can make appointments on the remaining seats,” he said.
Flora said appointments must be made before the 75th day before the election, which is Aug. 20. If appointed, appointees take office and serve exactly as if they were elected by the voters.
“The purpose of Elections Code § 10229 is to give the City the option of avoiding the cost of an election when there are less candidates than available offices, but due to the prohibition on appointing a majority of councilmembers, the City can’t completely avoid incurring the cost of an Election,” Flora wrote.
He said the council’s three options are to hold the election for all of the seats, making the third seat available for qualified write-in candidates; appoint the two qualified candidates to office, while holding a special election in November for the third seat; or appoint a qualified elector to the unnominated seat and allow an election to be held on the two qualified candidates’ seats.
The agenda packet includes three separate resolutions depending on what action the council may wish to take.
Email Elizabeth Larson at