Jeff Pelline's Sierra Foothills Report

Though county supervisors have unanimously made their decision, the hard right is still politicizing the decision to charge a minimal fee for recorded maps to comply with state privacy law.

One of them, Barry Pruett (who lost to Greg Diaz in the clerk-recorder race), states on his blog: “The Recorder’s office making money on the back of business. It really is that simple.”

No it’s not. “At this time, a complete set of Nevada County’s recorded maps will cost approximately $2,287.65. The Nevada County Clerk-Recorder is proposing to collectively sell Nevada County’s recorded maps as a set for $235, which representa a ten-fold decrease when compared to the current cost structure,” a memo by Diaz, provided at the meeting, reads.

The Clerk-Recorder also intends to provide a current and complete set of recorded maps in DVD format to the county Contractor’s Association pending the requested passage and adoption of this Ordinance, which will serve to benefit members of the NCCA.

“The office of the Nevada County Clerk-Recorder may experience a slight increase in revenue” is the fiscal impact, according to the memo.

At Tuesday’s meeting, none of the contractors who spoke complained about the fees. They only complained about the delay in getting the maps — brought on by the drawn-out debate on this matter.

Exit question: Will the hard right raise the same stink if Sue Horne and Tina Vernon decide to charge fees, a result of the state privacy law?

Filed under: Uncategorized | 14 Comments »

I was relieved the county supervisors voted unanimously to support the clerk-recorder and county counsel in charging a modest fee for digital or print recorded maps to comply with a new privacy state law — a “no brainer” once you strip the small-town politics out of it.

The issue will be reviewed in 120 days to look for an online solution — though it still might not comply with the state law, putting the county at legal risk. And as I wrote previously, the law will have to be applied to the assessor’s and tax collector’s office as well.

A password-protected online solution has drawbacks too. A “bad guy,” for example, could still gain unapproved access, so the county still might not be in compliance with the privacy law.

The debate — which became heated at times — was a classic example of the priorities of an elected general official being at odds with one who is elected to manage a government department. I watched the proceeding on NCTV and absorbed it all.

I found the politicking that went along with the discussion disappointing and unnecessary. By their own admission, the contractors who spoke said the fees were modest. What held them up, in fact, was the board’s drawn out discussion of the issue.

Board Chairman Ed Scofield didn’t need to publicly throw clerk-recorder Greg Diaz and the county counsel under the bus. By his own admission, he’s not a lawyer, so his emotional response mattered less to most of us than the paid expert. Who’s going to be defending the county if it doesn’t comply with the state law?

Instead, Ed sided with Barry Pruett, a south county political ally who “analyzed” the matter. (I heard clearly that former Supervisor John Spencer asked for this memo, but Barry denies it, claiming it just interested him).

Either way, the county counsel did a good job of picking apart Barry’s argument, showing the attorney general’s decision that he relied on was not as relevant as he might have thought. It also was open to wider interpretation. Why does our county want to be a “test case”?

Ed also should have disclosed his own conflict of interest: donating campaign money to Pruett, when he ran against Diaz. “I know it’s a small town but this is ridiculous,” as Rodney Dangerfield would put it.

I’m sure this kind of debate is a far cry from the days when board members were much more confrontational.

“We the people” deserve more professionalism, however. This was a case of making a political mountain out of an administrative molehill.

And as I’ve said all along, it’s the hard right raising all the ruckus, not the left. Tom McClintock’s re-election has emboldened this group, and it’s up to the community to speak out. I was hoping for some leadership, but I haven’t see any. After all, most of us are centrists.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 13 Comments »

I have questioned whether the hard right seems to be politicizing the county clerk-recorder’s decision to remove property maps from the internet and charge a nominal fee instead.

Clerk-recorder Greg Diaz and the county counsel agreed to remove them from the county website to comply with California privacy laws, including 6254.24, a decision supported by nearly all other counties.

But our local “hard right” political contingent including former Supervisor John Spencer, some leaders of the county Contractors Association and now — we learn — tea party activist Barry Pruett have all been highly critical of Diaz’ and the county’s decision. They are complaining about a minimal cost, well below what the county would normally charge, suggesting an “anti-business” agenda.

Supervisor Ed Scofied got personal, telling The Union: “I wish that Greg would be a bit more cooperative with us. I’m not sure our board is entirely convinced this is the right way to go.” (For the record, Scofield contributed money to Pruett’s campaign against Diaz).

(You’d wish that Diaz was treated as respectfully as the board treated one another, when it came to a recent dispute about whether to endorse a Science Series).

Well, guess what, now Assessor Sue Horne and Tax Collector Tina Vernon — who both happen to be registered Republicans — will face the same issue as Diaz’ office when it comes to posting county records on the internet.

A memo from David Gau, California Board of Equalization instructing all assessors to restrict internet access to an expanded list of people, including electeds, is here.

In fact, a meeting is planned at the Rood Center with other department heads soon to discuss this, according to my sources.

In the end, Sue Horne and Tina Vernon will be faced with the same conundrum as Diaz.

I wonder if the hard right will bash them, as they did Diaz. I doubt that, because they helped Sue get elected. Some of them supported Tina too.

This is a classic example of small-town politics at play, as I’ve said all along. I keep looking to somebody to lead us out this.

A link to the code is here.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Editor’s note: I received this memo from the Auburn Chamber, confirming the “turn-by turn” route announcement for the race will be later tomorrow. As I wrote previously, the Stage 2 race is expected to include Nevada City and Grass Valley.

Auburn Celebrates Amgen Tour of California Stage 3 Route Announcement

In conjunction with AEG’s upcoming 2011 Amgen Tour of California route announcement, Auburn will be hosting a Cycling Celebration in Downtown Auburn’s Central Square Wednesday February 9, 2011.

As the Host City of the Stage 3 Start, Auburn welcomes the Amgen Tour of California professional cycling race to the Endurance Capital of the World and invites its residents to come feel the excitement for an afternoon of entertainment, food, fun and cycling; beginning with a Press Conference at 4:30 p.m.

The 2011 Amgen Tour of California will travel throughout the state from May 15-22, 2011. Stage 3 will begin in Downtown Auburn on May 17th. The eight-day stage race will wind through some of California’s most scenic landmarks, visiting returning cities like Sacramento and Paso Robles and new cities like Lake Tahoe and Mt. Baldy.

Bike Auburn, the race’s local organizing committee, will be sharing all the turn-by-turn details of the Stage 3 route from Auburn to Modesto with the community during the Cycling Celebration. Bike Auburn, the City of Auburn and the Auburn Chamber of Commerce along with several local bike retailers, will have display booths in Central Square; the Rotary will be holding a BBQ; music and speakers will be on hand; and the public will even have a chance to ride part of the race route during the Sierra Foothill Cycling Club’s “Route Cement Ride” that will begin at the site of the proposed Auburn Stage Start in Central Square and then finish back at Central Square for the community celebration which will continue until 7:00pm.

So come feel the energy! All Auburn residents, businesses and sports enthusiasts are welcome to join in on this family friendly event Wednesday February 9, 2011 4:30 – 7:00 p.m. in Downtown Auburn’s Central Square as we Celebrate the Amgen Tour of California 2011 route announcement.

For more information about Bike Auburn and other events leading up to the race, visit http://www.BikeAuburn.com
For further information on the 2011 Amgen Tour of California, visit http://www.amgentourofcalifornia.com

Stages for the 2011 Amgen Tour of California:
· Stage 1: Sunday, May 15 – South Lake Tahoe to North Lake Tahoe-Northstar at Tahoe Resort
· Stage 2: Monday, May 16 – North Lake Tahoe-Squaw Valley to Sacramento
· Stage 3: Tuesday, May 17 – Auburn to Modesto
· Stage 4: Wednesday, May 18 – Livermore to San Jose
· Stage 5: Thursday, May 19 – Seaside to Paso Robles
· Stage 6: Friday, May 20 – Solvang Individual Time Trial
· Stage 7: Saturday, May 21 – Claremont to Mt. Baldy
· Stage 8: Sunday, May 22 – Santa Clarita to Thousand Oaks

Filed under: Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Editor’s note: Sierra Business Council President Steve Frisch has provided an excellent summary of the Placer County Conservation Plan, which was discussed here previously. Thanks Steve.

Also, an editorial from the Sacramento Bee is here. It called the plan “a true breakthrough in collaborative efforts to guide growth in a farsighted fashion.” Here’s the summary:

Last month the Placer County Board of Supervisors approved submitting the Placer County Conservation Plan (PCCP) to state and federal agencies for approval.

The PCCP will protect about 80,000 acres of environmentally sensitive lands and water, and raise about $1.5 billion for land and water protection and stewardship, during the next 50 years, while managing the availability of 118,000 acres of land for growth and development in the remainder of the plan area.

About 16,000 acres within the area have already been protected by either the Placer Land Trust or other investments by Placer County’s Open Space Trust Fund.

The PCCP is the first phase of a planned county-wide effort to coordinate in one place four different mandatory regulatory processes, in order to reduce costs, increase certainty and provide predictability for landowners, while meeting the county’s open space, habitat and water quality objectives.

Phase I covers the foothills and grasslands and valley floor regions of the county from roughly Auburn down to Antelope and up to Sheridan (a 212,000 acre area).

The four processes the PCCP aggregates are the counties requirement to comply with the federal Endangered Species Act through a Habitat Conservation Plan; the requirement to comply with the California Endangered Species Act through a Natural Communities Conservation Plan; the federal requirement to comply with Sections 401 & 404 and the Clean Water Act through programmatic permitting; and state requirements to comply with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, through programmatic permitting.

Once the plan is approved a landowner wishing to develop has only one place to go, the County Planning Office, and they will be able to issue all of the required permits, in approximately 18 months less time than doing so through the various agencies.

The Staff Report is here.

The creation of the PCCP was one of the major recommendations of the Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Program, approved by the board of Supervisors in 2000.

A description of the Placer Legacy Program is here.

HOW IT BEGAN

The Placer Legacy Program began in 1998 after several Placer Board of Supervisors members recognized, that as the fastest growing county in California much of what was attractive and desirable about living in the county was at risk from rapid growth and development, and that the County General Plan, adopted in 1994, provided direction to manage that growth.

The county, recognizing that growth was a major driver of economic development and prosperity, was seeking a mechanism to direct growth to the most desirable areas, while compensating landowners who might want to develop and had lands in sensitive areas.

Simultaneously, state and federal regulators, who have a mandate to protect threatened and endangered species and their habitats, were approaching the county with concerns about the rapidity and location of growth.

In 1998 Sierra Business Council (SBC) approached the County with the idea of conducting an inclusive community process to address these issues, incorporate multiple interests and stakeholders, use a collaborative process to identify objectives, and incorporate them into a programmatic General Plan amendment to achieve the objectives.

While these discussions were taking place SBC approached some major California philanthropic foundations with a request to support the effort, and secured approximately $350 K to augment County investments in support of the effort.

Placer Legacy was born, with a unanimous vote of the Board.

For the next three years the county convened three collaborative groups to develop and coordinate recommendations: a Citizen’s Advisory Group, with wide ranging stakeholder interests involved; an Inter-Agency Working Group of local, state and federal agencies; and a Scientific Working Group comprised of the top experts in the field.

Working together these three groups advised staff on the drafting of the Placer Legacy Open Space and Agricultural Conservation Plan, approved by the Board, once again unanimously, in 2000. The Plan enjoyed the support of the Building Industry Association, Placer County Association of Realtors, and the Sierra Club.

The Placer Legacy plan included a request for an advisory vote of the people approving the plan, which passed as Measure V with 56 percent of the vote, and a financial commitment to accelerate land protection activities in the form of a ¼ of 1 percent sales tax increase, which failed as Measure W with 28 percent of the vote, in June of 2000.

Subsequent to the passage of Placer Legacy the PCCP process began, while acquisitions of property to meet the objectives continued, without the requested investment from the sales tax. Since 2000 there has been approximately 16,000 acres of land protection.

SBC’S ROLE

Sierra Business Council’s key role in these programs has been 1) helping to conceptualize the project, 2) fundraising (over the years we have raised over $1 million to support the planning and acquisition), 3) managing the public engagement processes, working groups, and acting as facilitator, 4) public relations, and 5) assisting the staff with drafting and reviewing documents.

This was my first project as an SBC staff member, joining the effort begun by former SBC staff member Tracy Grubbs in progress in late 1999, and working through the process until today.

This will represent the single largest investment in Sierra Nevada conservation since the creation of the national parks. I am particularly proud of the fact that this will actually help reduce costs to developers and the economic development community by providing certainty, predictability and clarity about what can, and cannot, be done.

This is the ultimate proof that economic development and smart environmental protection are not competing goals. In reality they are complimentary values. When the PCCP is approved by state and federal regulators this will be one of the proudest achievements of my life.

Tremendous credit in this process needs to go to: the hundreds of community volunteers and supporters; leadership at the County level, particularly County Supervisor Robert Weygandt, Planning Directors Fred Yeager and Mike Johnson, and lead planning staff Loren Clark; and the interests in the development, environmental, housing, conservation, water, cities, and economic development communities who stuck with it through 12 long years to make it happen.

This is an example of what a community with vision, will, commitment, political sophistication, a collaborative spirit, and tenacity, can achieve.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 22 Comments »

California Rep. Jane Harman (D) will resign from Congress, a surprise announcement that will set off a special election in her 36th district.

The district went for Obama 64-34 and Kerry 59-40, according to SwingStateProject.com.

“On the Republican side, most likely we’ll see a candidacy from Tom McClintock,” who’s now our congressman, SwingState.com is speculating.

I guess the rationale would be that Tom thinks he could help the Republicans pick up another seat in Congress that was Democratic, though I fail to understand why he thinks he could prevail. The 36th district covers parts of Los Angeles County, notably Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, El Segundo and Venice.

We, meanwhile, are a “safe” Republican district.

If Tom runs, I hope the people who blindly support him will begin to figure out his true colors: Not dedicated to representing us in the first place and a “carpetbagger.” Tom still lives in Elk Grove.

Sec. of State Debra Bowen also is considering a run for the Democrats.

Filed under: Uncategorized | 6 Comments »