How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
News
- Details
- Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS
“We are living in a new reality of extremes. Believe the science — and your own damn eyes: Mother Nature is changing the way we live and we must continue adapting to those changes. California’s resilience means we will keep updating our standards in the most fire-prone areas,” said Newsom.
The executive order issued by Gov. Newsom does the following:
• Directs the State Board of Forestry to accelerate its work to adopt regulations known as “Zone 0,” which will require an ember-resistant zone within 5 feet of structures located in the highest fire severity zones in the state.
• Tasks the Office of the State Fire Marshal with releasing updated Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps for areas under local government responsibility, adding 1.4 million new acres of land into the two higher tiers of fire severity, which will update building and local planning requirements for these communities statewide.
• Requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, or Cal Fire and the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to work with local, federal and tribal partners on improvements to the Federal resource ordering system for wildfire response.
Protecting homes
Science has shown that combustible material within the immediate five feet of a structure contributes the greatest risk of embers directly or indirectly igniting the home.
“Zone 0” regulations under development for new and existing construction would require an ember-resistant zone within the immediate 5-feet of structures in local area very high fire hazard severity zones in local responsibility areas, and fire hazard severity zones in state responsibility areas.
Zone 0 regulations would move forward this year in tandem with financial assistance and relief for homeowners, proposed in the Governor’s January Budget, and to be augmented by the California Conservation Corps supporting work in vulnerable communities and in coordination with local Fire Safe Councils.
While it is anticipated that the regulations would apply to new construction upon taking effect, requirements for existing homes would likely be phased in over three years to allow homeowners to prepare and prioritize mitigations and secure financial assistance.
Research suggests that the cost of building a home with Zone 0 mitigations already incorporated adds little to no cost to building a comparable home without those features.
Updating fire hazard severity areas
To ensure future resiliency against urban firestorms, local government planners and developers will have to factor in wildfire-hardening requirements in building planning, design, and construction within nearly 2.3 million acres of land in areas where local governments are responsible for wildfire prevention and response, known as local responsibility areas.
The release of updated fire hazard severity zones for local responsibility area maps would identify new areas where new development is required to adhere to the highest standards of wildfire resilient building codes and land-use planning.
These new zones and maps would add approximately 1.4 million new acres of land into the two higher tiers of fire hazard severity. Specifically, they would expand current wildfire building resiliency requirements in the high fire hazard severity zone to approximately 1.16 million new acres, and they would expand both current wildfire building and local planning resiliency requirements in the very high fire hazard severity zone to approximately 247,000 new acres.
The release of these updated zones and maps, which are expected to be released one region at a time beginning in Northern California, would begin a 120-day clock for local government jurisdictions to adopt local ordinances incorporating the State Fire Marshal’s recommendations.
The release of these local responsibility area maps would follow last year’s release of equivalent updated zones and maps in the state responsibility area, and follow months of planning discussions, including consultation with insurance providers who have developed their own models to determine risk, premiums and coverage that are independent of the state’s fire hazard severity zone maps.
Investing in wildfire prevention
Overall, the state has more than doubled investments in wildfire prevention and landscape resilience efforts, providing more than $2.5 billion in wildfire resilience since 2020, with an additional $1.5 billion from the 2024 Climate Bond to be committed beginning this year for proactive projects that protect communities from wildfire and promote healthy natural landscapes.
Of note, since 2021, the state has made strategic investments in at least 61 fuels reduction projects near the Palisades and Eaton fire perimeters through projects treated over 14,500 acres.
The Newsom Administration has invested $2 billion to support Cal Fire operations, a 47% increase since 2018, which has helped build Cal Fire from 5,829 positions to 10,741 in that same period, and the Administration is now implementing shorter workweeks for state firefighters to prioritize firefighter well-being while adding 2,400 additional state firefighters to Cal Fire’s ranks over the next five years.
Augmenting technological advancements and pre-deployment opportunities
The Newsom Administration has also overseen the expansion of California’s aerial firefighting fleet, including the addition of more than 16 helicopters with several equipped for night operations, expanded five helitack bases, and assumed ownership of seven C-130 air tankers, making it the largest fleet of its kind globally.
California is also leveraging AI-powered tools to spot fires quicker, has deployed the Fire Integrated Real-Time Intelligence System to provide real-time mapping of wildfires, and has partnered with the U.S. Department of Defense to use satellites for wildfire detection and invested in LiDAR technology to create detailed 3D maps of high-risk areas, helping firefighters better understand and navigate complex terrains.
In anticipation of severe fire weather conditions in early January 2025, the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services approved the prepositioning of 65 fire engines, as well as more than 120 additional firefighting resources and personnel in Los Angeles, Orange, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego counties, and Cal Fire moved firefighting resources to Southern California including 45 additional engines and six hand crews to the region.
During the wildfires, California was able to mobilize more than 16,000 personnel including firefighters, National Guard servicemembers, California Highway Patrol officers and transportation teams to support the response to the Los Angeles firestorms, and more than 2,000 firefighting apparatus composed of engines, aircraft, dozers and water tenders to aid in putting out the fires.
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
CLEARLAKE, Calif. — Clearlake Animal Control has many deserving dogs wanting new homes.
The shelter has 47 adoptable dogs listed on its website.
This week’s dogs include “Starburst,” a 6-month-old female mixed breed dog.
The shelter is located at 6820 Old Highway 53. It’s open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday.
For more information, call the shelter at 707-762-6227, email
This week’s adoptable dogs are featured below.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: LINGZI CHEN
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. — The debate over the processes for renaming Kelseyville returned to the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, nearly two months after the board voted to recommend changing the town’s name to Konocti to federal and state agencies.
The meeting was not a reconsideration or reverse of the board’s former decision to support the name change, as some residents and advocates had pushed for.
Instead, supervisors considered sending letters to federal and state naming authorities, requesting them to update their name-changing process.
Throughout the 50-minute discussion, public interest in the letters stayed minimal, and supervisors questioned their necessity. Criticism over the letters and the local leadership on the name change process over the past year ensued.
Ultimately, the motion to send those letters to the naming authorities—United States Board on Geographic Names and the California Advisory Committee on Geographic Names, often referred to as the BGN and CACGN respectively—died for lack of a second.
On Dec. 10, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to support the name change from Kelseyville to Konocti, despite more than 70% of voters opposing it in a November advisory ballot.
Supervisor Eddie Crandell, and outgoing supervisors Moke Simon and Michael Green voted in favor of the option to recommend the name change. Supervisor Jessica Pyska and Bruno Sabatier voted against it.
The formal recommendation was sent to the naming authorities on Dec. 13.
Despite efforts to keep comments focused on the agenda item, discussions on Tuesday veered into concerns over the actual matter of Kelseyville’s name change — revisiting the board’s prior support for renaming Kelseyville, the likelihood of federal approval, and doubts about local leadership in the process — all of which were not mentioned in the letter on the agenda.
Supervisor Sabatier commented at one point that he was not sure if people had heard or read the actual agenda item — the letters.
“There was obviously some massive confusion, because the majority of the public comments that we received were not related to the item on the agenda,” he said, out of the context that most public comments were about “whether they wanted to keep the name or change the name.”
Calls for the supervisors’ reconsideration
Since the board’s December vote, calls have grown for the board to revisit the matter or reverse the decision.
Rachel White of the advocacy group Save Kelseyville asked the board to bring back the matter for “discussion and action to reverse the recommendation to support the name change,” in her Jan. 13 email to supervisors Pyska and Rasmussen, citing “flaws” in the name change application process.
At the board meeting on Jan. 14, five-term former Supervisor Rob Brown requested the board to bring the issue back during public comment. He argued that the newly sworn-in supervisors — District 1 Supervisor Helen Owen and District 4 Supervisor Brad Rasmussen — should have the opportunity to weigh in.
Brown also discussed his requests with Supervisor Crandell—who this year serves as the board chair — prior to and after that board meeting. Crandell replied in an email on Jan. 15: “I will definitely reach out to you with the date and time this will be agendized.”
“It’s obviously not happening,” Brown said during public comment this Tuesday regarding his request.
“I understand this isn’t exactly what you wanted; I deferred to the district supervisor,” said Supervisor Crandell in response to Brown’s comment, suggesting that the agenda item of sending the letters was brought up by District 5 Supervisor Pyska, whose district includes Kelseyville.
Crandell reiterated it to Lake County News in a quick interview right after the meeting, adding that he had “never imposed anything.”
The chamber was half filled, noticeably less packed than the full-house December meeting where nearly 40 public comments were made by the proponents and opponents of the name change.
This time, most of the public members who spoke up were against the name change, requesting for a revisit of the matter by the board.
“Some people left this room on Dec. 10 feeling like they got slapped in the face,” said Sabatier later in the meeting. “But saying the process is flawed is also a slap in the face of the 30% who voted to change the name and got that name changed. The process worked for the 30%.”
In fact, although the board submitted a letter supporting the name change, Kelseyville’s name has not yet been changed. The “difficult conversation,” as supervisors repeatedly called it, remains ongoing.
The December vote was over. Can the supervisors actually bring it back?
As the first speaker during public comment, Brown requested again to have the new board vote on the same item that the former board voted on in December — whether to recommend changing the name of Kelseyville to Konocti.
Supervisor Crandell deferred to County Counsel Lloyd Guintivano.
Guintivano said the board could not add any new items immediately to the current meeting beyond the agenda item about the letters to the BGN and CACGN.
During the discussion, he further added that the deadline to submit or propose a reconsideration of the board's action that took place on Dec. 10 would have been the next regularly scheduled board meeting, which should be Dec. 17, citing Section 3, Rule 9 of the board rules.
“That time has passed,” Guintivano said.
Brown challenged it.
“The Brown Act Rule 27 allows for reconsideration of any item that’s been voted on by the board,” Brown said, adding that Supervisor Crandell—who voted in the majority on December 10—would be eligible to bring forward a motion for reconsideration within a year. He insisted that the Brown Act should “supersede.”
Crandell again directed the questions to Guintivano, who in turn reiterated and held tight to the board policies.
“I can certainly contend that those are compliant with the Brown Act,” he said.
“There are consequences to violating the Brown Act. There are no consequences to violating or going against board policy,” Brown said.
No conclusion was attained from this discussion.
After the meeting, Lake County News asked Supervisor Crandell if the matter of name change will be brought back again.
“I don’t have an answer for now,” he said.
Criticism of the letters and of local leadership
It appeared that no one on the board believed that the letters on motion would work or matter, including Supervisor Pyska who brought it up.
The draft letters on the agenda make early reference to the Trump Administration’s executive order — “Restoring Names That Honor American Greatness” issued on Jan. 20. The order said it aimed at promoting the nation’s heritage and ensuring future generations “celebrate the legacy of our American heroes.”
It ordered the BGN to reappoint board members within seven days, and to advance the new policy goals on all naming and renaming applications, which would include the Lake County Board of Supervisors’ recommendation to rename Kelseyville to Konocti submitted in December after the board vote.
The executive order also stated that the BGN may update its “principles, policies, and procedures” in order to advance the new goals.
Pyska said at the beginning of the meeting that this executive order “gives us the opportunity to share where we found those policies fell short over the last year, specifically around renaming populated places.”
The letters request the BGN review its policies because “the current policies and procedures lack clarity, contain conflicting information, and have generally frustrated the residents of Lake County.”
The letters also explicitly asked the BGN to “develop a process for ‘alternate names,’” which was associated with the fact that the original name change proposal submitted by the local group Citizens for Healing on Oct. 2023 only included one replacement name for Keyselville — “Konocti.”
The proposed letter and the board’s agenda setting itself faced immediate resistance when it came to public comment.
“They [The BGN] do have a procedure for accepting other names,” said White of Save Kelseyville, criticizing the letters as containing inaccurate information. “No other names were accepted because we don't want to change our name, period.”
She added, “Our name is not changing, and we want to move on. This letter is another step in the wrong direction, and if you can't figure out where we're going, we need new leadership.”
Board members voice concerns over proposed letters, process
Board members also voiced their discontent with the letter and the board’s leadership over the name change matter.
“Before we tell someone else that their process should be changed, I think we need to review our process as a whole,” said Sabatier during board comment. “Before we point a finger at someone else, we should be pointing it at ourselves.”
He added, “I don’t think we should be sending a letter today.”
Sabatier went on to ask not to spend staff time on drafting these letters.
“If a board member wants to bring something, they can do that on their own,” Sabatier said, adding that staff should spend time on priorities that “make our communities better” such as economic development and creating better opportunities.
“This is not on the list of things that we’re asking staff to work on,” he said of the letters.
For Supervisor Rasmussen, public engagement hadn’t been sufficient. The letters were only made public last Thursday afternoon which left not enough time for the public to be fully informed and engaged.
“I also think that this board in 2024 could have taken a more active role in engaging the public,” he added.
On Feb. 26, 2024, the BGN reached out to the Board of Supervisors, requesting their opinion on the name change. The Board of Supervisors did not act collectively until it held a special meeting on July 30, where the supervisors passed a motion on a 3-2 vote to put the Kelseyville name change on the ballot for countywide vote as an advisory measure, known as Measure U.
“We weren't involved until the board decided to put it to a vote,” Rasmussen said. “We just weren't engaged.”
Rasmussen added that he thought the decision to change the name or not should remain local.
“I personally don’t think the federal government ought to be involved in changing the name of populated places anywhere in the United States. They're not here.” he said. “If we were going to send any letters, I don't think they ought to be involved in any of these decisions.”
“The public input was brought to us on a ballot,” said Supervisor Owen. “If that was to be ignored, it shouldn’t have been put on the ballot in the first place.”
In her comments, Pyska reemphasized that the two naming authorities lacked clarity and were not responsive to her questions throughout last year, which she found frustrating. She said she brought the matter to a countywide vote to seek public input, but the board voted in an opposite direction. She also mentioned the county counsel’s response that she could not bring the board’s December vote back.
For Pyska, the letters to the BGN and CACGN were the next possible steps she came up with.
“This is what I felt like the very next thing that we could do—is share the frustration that I have had over this last year with the lack of participation and engagement from both of these committees,” Pyska said of her motivation in proposing sending the letters.
“It’s a frustration because this was just dumped on our lap with no support and it’s taken a lot of time and energy,” she said.
She then made a long, dismissive comment on the letters she proposed and the federal order’s impact on the name change:
“So here we are. This executive order pretty much says the name is not going to change,” said Pyska. “The Trump administration is taking this direction. They are completely gutting the BGN. They are replacing all of the BGN board members. The staff is gone, and the policies need to be rewritten. And so here's our suggestion — if you're rewriting policies here. But at the end of the day, nothing is going to happen.”
Regarding the application to change Kelseyville’s name and her proposed letters on state and federal policy, Pyska said, “If this committee ever reforms and is productive, it's going to take years to figure out any of this, and this file is never going to even get opened. So I don't really want to put any more time and resources into this.”
The audience clapped, which was the first time that applause followed Pyska’s comments in the board meetings regarding the name change.
Still, Brown, who was Pyska’s predecessor for 20 years as the supervisor of the district, wasn’t buying it.
“What I’ve heard, as this discussion goes, from Jessica—it’s the BGN’s fault. It’s Trump’s fault. It’s CACGN’s fault. It’s the board members that voted against the will of the vote—it’s their fault. It's the county counsel’s fault because they gave me rule nine,” Brown said. “That’s the one thing that’s lacking is your admission that you should hold yourself accountable.”
Unresolved: ‘The letter is still there’
Toward the end of the discussion, the supervisors reached a consensus of belief that the name of Kelseyville was not going to be changed under the current Trump Administration, despite the board’s December letter to the federal and state agencies to support the name change.
“We all know the way that I voted,” said Crandell of his vote in favor of the name change in December. “However, knowing how this goes now, it more than likely isn’t going to happen with the diminishing of the departments.”
Crandell added, “What this letter was to me was to give them some insight, to ensure another community doesn’t get broken apart by this type of vote.”
Supervisor Owen asked about the board’s December letter supporting the name change. “The letter is still there.”
Even if the current federal government may not address it, Owen asked whether the letter could be brought up again when there's a new president in the future.
“Will it drop off and go away?” she asked.
There was no definite answer to the question during the meeting.
After all of the discussion, Pyska read the motion to send the letters of policy suggestions to the BGN and CACGN. Without a second, “Motion dies,” Crandell announced.
Email staff reporter Lingzi Chen at
- Details
- Written by: LAKE COUNTY NEWS REPORTS
The town hall will take place at 6 p.m. Thursday, Feb. 6.
Thompson will discuss and answer constituents’ questions on how Congress is fighting back against the unlawful actions of the new administration.
All constituents of California’s Fourth Congressional District are invited to attend. Details are below:
To participate via Zoom, register here. The town hall also will be streamed on Thompson’s Facebook page.
Those who are not able to make the town hall but have any questions about Thompson’s work, upcoming legislative action, or issues that affect the district are invited to call Thompson’s office at 202-225-3311 or click here to email him.
Thompson represents California’s Fourth Congressional District, which includes all or part of Lake, Napa, Solano, Sonoma and Yolo counties.
