photo credit: Randall Benton, Sacramento Bee
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.
Kirk Ranch
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
Here’s a quote from my book, Once Upon a Village, chapter four, titled “20-20 Vision”…
“Ironically, at the same time NH2020 was being shelved up here, ultra-conservative Placer County adopted a similar plan known as Placer Legacy. As far as I know, UN troops haven’t occupied the Auburn Courthouse.”
Glad to see the vision has come to fruition, Steve. Maybe someday, it will happen here. Perhaps working with a more conservative Board of Supes will keep the conspiracy theorists from going bonkers like they did with the Gang of Four. Just proves that people CAN work together to accomplish good things.
RL–Thanks.
I think there were some pivotal differences between Placer and Nevada County in 2000 which led to the failure of NH2020 to achieve similar, smaller scale results. (I do want to note that much of the work that was done during NH2020 is still out there, being used, and is very important, particularly the Nevada County Natural Resources Report, which is still one of the best compendiums of locally focused research anywhere in the state).
1) Nevada County did not have anyway near the scale of threatened and endangered species issues; Placer has about 30 special status species and Nevada County has less than 10,
2) Federal regulators were not breathing down the County’s neck, and thus were not routine busting developers for species impacts, thus neither the County nor the developers were feeling compelled,
3) Placer was almost uniformly Republican, Nevada County was evenly split and polarized. The polarization allowed people to use the process for political gain,
4) Placer County had strong, skilled, experienced leadership that knew how to forge compromises and was willing to reach across the aisle–and they lasted the 14 years necessary to see the project through
Finally, the PCCP is not quite done yet, it will probably take two more years to finish the federal and state review and make minor adjustments based on that review. We still have some work to do.
A VERY big kudos to Steve Frisch and the Sierra Business Council, and all the local officials in Placer County, land trusts etc. that participated.
I sincerely hope folks in the surrounding counties, especially ours, take notice. Lets replace fear and petty bickering with working together and finding solutions.
Preserving the environment and having a healthy economy does not have to conflict.
Thanks Steve–there are probably 100 people I should thank here, these things happen because a whole bunch of people stick with it and contribute. Kudos to the people in Placer, the state and feds, the consultants, the staff, all of them.
My wife’s father has lived with us for the past three years and is a BIG golf fan… He does not like basketball or football so you can imagine how excited he is about the golf season getting into full swing [pun intended].
Dad is now 91 years old and has never actually played golf, but I digress: This weekend they are playing at Pebble Beach which I guess is one of the most beautiful courses in the world.
So the question I have for all of you radical environmentalists is whether there would be ANY chance to get an EIR and approval for such a development today?
And as a bonus follow-up question, does this mean there will never be another Pebble Beach course built for his great grandchildren to enjoy?
John
Perhaps the people to ask about building another golf course isn’t those pesky “radical environmentalists” (not sure who qualifies to be in that category) but those radical farmers who might have to give up their irrigation water. Maybe go to a local watershed council meeting John and ask them. I’m sure they will be more than willing to tell you what they think of that plan.
Steve,
I am in favor of abundant water for all.
John
John, I recommend upstate New York, in California, its a very finite resource.
Steve,
Just a little trick question for you: Which river has the greater watershed: The Colorado or the Sacramento?
John
The Colorado River watershed is large (about 244,000 square miles, or roughly 10 times the size of the Sacramento River watershed).
Didn’t find that answer in the bible or any other supernatural source.
John, what exactly do you mean by “greater”? The first order hydrologic unit’s land mass? And what does it matter anyway with “which one is greater”? Should the Sacramento River end up like the Colorado’s does, which is to say there is nothing left by the time it gets to the ocean?
Steve,
I was referring to the annual flow that each river has, not what was done with that water.
John
Peter,
BUT you did find it while my neighbor’s dog could not which demonstrates again that you are made in the image of God!
John
Context Stoos, context.
My dog is the one who gave me the answer.
Yeah, John, absolutely not going to trip me up with that question–the answer is yes, golf courses just as great as Pebble Beach can be built today. They just need to do the work, do it right, and make sure that they take the finite nature of certain resources into account. If the question is “could Pebble Beach as it was previously planned be built today”, the answer is probably no. But then again, things change.
The biggest challenge to golf today is not environmental review, it is the shrinking demographic of people who want to play golf (I know no one now under the age of 45 who still plays golf), oversupply of golf courses, and declining property value around golf courses leading to an inability to maintain them. Golf is a declining sport. People now prefer access to open space and trails over golf courses as residential development amenities.
As far as being a radical environmentalist is concerned, the Placer PCCP actually makes building and development EASIER for developers–it shortens their permitting process, reduces uncertainty about construction timelines, and increases predictability–and if you talk to any serious developer their enemies are uncertainty and unpredictability.
Finally, to prove I am not anti-growth and development I am pro good growth and development, let me go on the record right now (at the risk of angering a few of my friends here): I support the Homewood Mountain Resort redevelopment, the Boulder Bay project in North Lake Tahoe, the Baltimore Ravine project in Auburn, the Silver Bend Affordable housing project in Auburn, and I supported the Loma Rica Ranch project in Grass Valley. I support smart, infill, new urbanist, transit oriented, affordable, mixed use, and even appropriately placed large lot single family residential development.
Not gonna fall into the ‘radical environmentalist’ trap, I am a moderate, smart growth, capitalist. I even own shares of stock in a real estate development trust.
Steve,
You may think you are avoiding a trap but I find it interesting that you are involved and promoting the very thing that Ben and others detest on this blog: Those with influence getting what they need from government: I.E. the well connected developers get to develop.
John
I’m sorry John, I think you misunderstood. Not only the well connected developers will get to develop. The law will be implemented equally for everyone under the jurisdiction of the County in the affected area. All applications developers submit will be processed under the same rules.
The Placer developers earned their right to get permits processed quicker, and to increased certainty, as well as ‘safe harbor’ — a guarantee that they will not be held responsible for future endangered species mitigation– for their agreement to be covered under the plan.
There is the world as we want it to be, and the world as it is; this is how things get done in the real world.
Radical question from a radical monotheist.
“all of you radical environmentalists?”
Plebian commentary from a not-really-radical, but rather ordinary montheist.
Public or private course, John? I’m sure that beyond your usual discrimination to women and “others” i.e. non-christians, that you’d want the course to be available to all, right?
Is the proposed course fragmenting habitat? Will it depend on idiotic amounts of water to maintain? Will said proposed course be free of pesticides?
Such a fantasy wouldn’t get TO a DEIR, let alone have an EIR approved.
I will take that as a simple NO to both questions.
John
Now that’s using common sense.
It just seemed logical to me.
John