That one option menu, which has sparked resistance around the state, now is up for a redesign.

The opposition to SmartMeters over health, safety, privacy and billing concerns has prompted an administrative law judge on Aug. 3 to order Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric Co., and Southern California Gas Co. to attend a public workshop to discuss final opt-out proposals.

The workshop will be held on Wednesday, Sept. 14, from 9:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. at the CPUC Auditorium in the state office building, 505 Van Ness Ave., San Francisco. Each company will file detailed proposals prior to the forum.

The CPUC invites public attendance at the workshop, which can be done in person, by phone via a listen-only call in number (877-347-9604, participant code #771069) or through a live Webcast at http://www.californiaadmin.com/cpuc.shtml. The meeting also will be archived on the the commission's Web site at www.cpuc.ca.gov.

Also participating in the workshop will be consumer advocacy groups like The Utility Reform Network (TURN), based in San Francisco, and lawyers including Tiburon attorney James Tobin whose protest to CPUC was later joined by Lake and other counties. Tobin will represent several SmartMeter opponent groups.

Earlier this year the Lake County Board of Supervisors formally opposed PG&E’s plan, which includes customer opt-out fees of $135 up front, an additional $20 a month and an “exit fee” upon moving so the next resident can utilize a SmartMeter.

Customers also would have pay to have the device relocated on their property at estimated costs of $2,500 to $4,500 for overhead-meter customers and $6,000 to $11,000 for underground customers.

PG&E received approval to replace analog with wireless meters from the California Public Utilities Commission, which regulates utilities, in 2006.

Although the SmartMeter, also called “advanced metering infrastructure” (AMI), is part of a nationwide “smartgrid” rollout, wireless meters are not essential to a green grid, according to AB 37, an opt out bill introduced by assemblyman Jared Huffman in December.

While some opponents say SmartMeters should be offered on an opt-in, rather than opt-out basis, that matter has been decided by the CPUC, according to the Aug. 3 ruling.

The commission already has adopted AMI programs, which include SmartMeters, as the standard for the companies. As a result, customers can only opt out.

Huffman’s bill calls for an affordable hard-wired option that provides equivalent energy-saving benefits to the grid.

In response to the proposed law, PG&E let customers delay installation of a SmartMeter until the CPUC had determined an alternative. The commission then requested that the company draft its proposal, and AB 37 was put on hold.

PG&E’s opt-out proposal, filed March 24, did not include a wired option. The plan, which has the support of the Division of Ratepayer Advocates, the branch of the CPUC that is offering a final opt out proposal or proposals for each utility, allows customers to have their SmartMeters' radios disabled.

“Radio off is not going to solve the problems,” said Sue Brinchmann of the San Diego-based Center for Electrosmog Prevention, a group that also works with SmartMeter opponents in Northern California.

The group is submitting their own opt-out proposal, she said, along with science studies on the health effects of radio frequency, which is emitted by SmartMeters. It calls for a “no cost analog meter with full public disclosure of risks and problems.”

PG&E claims there is no health risk from the amount of radio frequency customers will experience, and that the devices meet the guidelines of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Opponents hotly dispute that contention, pointing to recent studies and saying the guidelines are outdated.

The FCC’s guidelines “Consumer Facts” Web page, “Wireless Devices and Health Concerns,” confirms that while many federal agencies have addressed the issue, “… there is no federally developed national standard for safe levels of exposure to radiofrequency energy ...”

Alongside PG&E’s disabled radio option, others that will be considered at the workshop include analog meters and digital meters with wired transmission capability like copper wire or fiber optic.

In the case of analog meters, customers who still have one could keep it, while those with a SmartMeter could swap it for an analog one.

The judge’s ruling asks that each proposal identify the option – radio off, analog or wired meter – and answer several other questions.

For example, for multi-unit residences like apartments and condos, will the opt-out decision be made by a majority of residents? What happens if the opt-out range includes a ratepayer who wants a SmartMeter, which proponents say will enable better control of energy use?

For its alternative, PG&E will have to explain if the radio will be disabled remotely or via field visit.

For each option, how will data be transmitted to the utility? For the radio off option, methods may allow wireless transmission (“remote ‘wake up’ of radio-off option”) during a set time each day.

But will customers be satisfied the device is truly disabled?

The companies also will discuss costs. Can each option be implemented the same way for a gas and an electric SmartMeter? Do any of the options result in costs that should be paid by all ratepayers, and not just those who want to opt out?

As some see it, the devil is in the detailed proposals. The group “Stop Smart Meters” supports the development of community choice aggregation (CCA) programs, which would create alternative electricity providers to PG&E.

For those who just want a choice about their meter, Brinchmann said it may take a “public uprising” to ensure real options.

She recommended that customers “go to CPUC’s Web site and file a complaint immediately.”

In addition to attending the workshop, she suggested residents participate in their local governments on the issue.

Customers can delay installation of a SmartMeter until the CPUC reaches a decision on PG&E's opt-out proposal by calling 877-743-7378.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

COUNTY OF LAKE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Lake will conduct a public hearing on application MMU 11-05 proposing a minor modification to an existing general plan of development for the removal and replacement of 15 employee recreational vehicle housing units with cabins to be used by resort patrons in addition to the designation of a 0.23 acre area to be used as a private cemetery, with 27 single depth burial plots.

The project applicant is Heart Consciousness Church. The project is located at 18424 Harbin Springs Road, Middletown (APN 013-009-24).

The Board will consider adoption of a negative declaration for the proposal based on Initial Study IS 11-05. The staff report will be available at the Community Development Department, (Lake County Courthouse, 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA) twenty (20) days before the hearing.

The Planner processing this application is Kevin Ingram, (707) 263-2221, or by email at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

The public hearing will be held before the Board of Supervisors in the Board of Supervisors’ Chamber in the Courthouse, located at 255 North Forbes Street, Lakeport, CA on October 4, 2011 at 9:30 AM, at which time and place interested persons may attend and be heard.

If you challenge the action of the Board of Supervisors on any of the above stated items in court, it may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Lake County Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA

ORDINANCE NO. 2957

AN ORDINANCE RESCINDING ORDINANCE NO. 2834 WHICH ESTABLISHED A PUBLIC DEFENDER LEGAL FEE REIMBURSEMENT PROGRAM, REGISTRATION FEE, AND REIMBURSEMENT FEE SCHEDULE

WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 2834 established a Public Defender Legal Fee Reimbursement Program, Registration Fee, and Reimbursement Fee Schedule; and

WHEREAS, at the time Ordinance No. 2834 was adopted, the intent was to establish a pilot program to standardize the eligibility process for defendants seeking a public defender, and to establish a mechanism for recovering costs borne by the County when a defendant has sufficient financial resources to pay a portion of their defense costs; and

WHEREAS, the program was intended to be self-funded through collection of a $25 screening fee and was also expected to generate sufficient revenue to cover administrative costs; and

WHEREAS, the Treasurer-Tax Collector’s Office has devoted considerable time and resources to test the reimbursement program and despite the time and effort, a very small number of defendants have been assessed a Legal Fee at the conclusion of their case; and

WHEREAS, the program has proven very difficult to collect and realized revenue is insufficient to justify the continuation of the program.

NOW THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Ordinance No. 2834, “An Ordinance Adopting a Public Defender Legal Fee Reimbursement Program, Registration Fee, and Reimbursement Fee Schedule” adopted by this Board on August 14, 2007, is hereby rescinded.

2. This ordinance shall take effect on October 6, 2011, and before the expiration of thirty days after its passage it shall be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the County of Lake.

The foregoing ordinance was introduced before the Board of Supervisors on August 23, 2011, and passed by the following vote on September 6, 2011

AYES: Supervisors Smith, Rushing, Farrington, Brown and Comstock

NOES: None

ABSENT OR NOT VOTING: None

The event, which begins at 10 a.m., will take place at 21256 Washington St., between Douglas and Callayomi streets, in Middletown.

The dual-use facility will comprise 12,377 square feet of space that includes a 4,400-square-foot senior center, a 5,450-square-foot public library, and a 2,527-square-foot common area.

The complex will provide a new home for the current county-operated public library that is just 1,790 square feet and the existing senior center operated by Middletown Seniors Inc. that is just 2,100 square feet – both of which are antiquated and insufficient to meet current demand or future needs of the area’s growing population.

“This project represents a significant county investment in the community of Middletown that we anticipate will provide many jobs for local contractors, construction suppliers, and other vendors,” said County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox.

“It’s exciting to see this project move forward,” Cox said. “It will not only create much-needed facility space for the Middletown Seniors and the County Library, but with its central location next to the new County park, it also will provide the community with a significant, central gathering place.”

Eric Seely, Lake County’s deputy redevelopment director who is performing project-management duties on the construction project, said, “It truly will be a beautiful facility, a building with a sense of place, and a design that will be able to serve the community for many years to come.”

Seely said the building’s design includes exterior arch details and an interior that will feature plenty of natural light with its vaulted ceilings, skylights, and lots of windows.

The total project cost is estimated to be $3,680,304. While construction bids came in above the preliminary construction estimate, the Board of Supervisors approved awarding the project to the low bidder, R. E. West Construction of Santa Rosa. Construction is estimated to take approximately one year.

The county is providing the bulk of the funding for the construction project with additional funding sources including $545,000 toward construction of the senior center from Community Development Block Grant Program Income; $40,000 toward construction of the library from Indian Gaming Mitigation Funds; and $50,000 for library equipment from USDA’s Rural Development Community Facilities Program.

The facility will be immediately adjacent to the new Middletown Square Park currently being developed by the County’s Public Services Department in cooperation with a local volunteer park committee; the park design includes turf and stamped concrete walkways and additional trees and shrubs to complement existing oak trees.

Additional park amenities such as a rock wall, interactive water feature, and restrooms may be added if a grant application to the state’s park grant program is approved next spring.

Combined, the new facility and the new park will comprise approximately 2.5 acres of public space.

For information about the Middletown Senior Center and Library Complex, contact Eric Seely or Jeff Rein in the Lake County Administrative Office at 707-263-2580.

For information about the Middletown Square Park, contact Lake County Public Services at 707-262-1618.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.

John Nady of Emeryville had appealed a May 2010 Lake County Planning Commission decision requiring him to complete a focused environmental impact report on cultural archaeological resources before he could build a residence, a caretaker’s cabin and standalone bathroom, and conduct utility trenching on the 57-acre island, located offshore from Clearlake Oaks.

Nady subsequently appealed the decision to conduct the focused EIR. He and his legal team argued the EIR wasn't necessary in light of a mitigated negative declaration and monitoring plan that had been created for the project, which they said affects only two-tenths of an acre.

“This island is not being turned into Disneyland,” said Sacramento land use attorney Diane Kindermann, who Nady hired to work on the appeal.

But local tribal members argued that the project's implications are far-reaching for their culture.

Elem Pomo tribal member Jim Brown, who had made a presentation to the board at its Aug. 16 meeting about his tribe's rightful ownership to the island – which Schrag said was ended in a 1949 court case – told the board, “This is where our civilization started.”

On Tuesday, at the end of the supervisors' second lengthy hearing on the matter, the board's majority agreed with Nady, voting 3-2 to uphold Nady's appeal, find that his grading permit met state guidelines and that a mitigated negative declaration would be issued.

Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing were the dissenting votes at the end of the four-hour session.

Nady, who has owned the land since 2003, said at the start of the hearing that he was open to the idea of allowing visits to the island and ceremonies there if he and the Pomo can achieve common ground. He also said the Elem Pomo were welcome to any artifacts found on the island or could leave them in place.

Nady offered to put up a small engraved plaque at the island's entrance explaining its history and cultural significance. “I realize that is a small first step,” he said.

He said he looked forward to having a relationship with the Pomo in the future that would facilitate ceremonies and visits. “I can't make any commitment beyond that,” until he sees a response, Nady said.

Nady's attorney, Frederic Schrag, told the board that the California Environmental Quality Act is meant to prevent adverse impacts on environmental and archaeological resources, but doesn't guarantee that all information on those resources will be extracted. Rather, it's to preserve them for the future.

He argued that an EIR “would provide no greater protection” than the offered mitigation and monitoring plan.

Local archaeologist Dr. John Parker argued that an EIR was necessary. “There may be a possibility that there is something buried that we don't know about,” he said.

Parker said that archaeological information was not removed from the site and analyzed in order for a mitigation plan to be developed. “You don't even know what's there,” he said.

Jim Brown told the board, “Stop stereotyping native Americans. We are all people, and this is our religion.”

Brown also argued that his tribe was not afforded the opportunity to have input on the county's archaeological study conducted by Dr. Thomas Gates, as was stated at the Aug. 16 meeting.

Schrag said it was his understanding from Gates – who was not present at the meeting – that the tribe had said it was best not to remove artifacts from the island during the study.

During the Tuesday discussion, Schrag said that the Nadys didn't need permits for some of the uses currently taking place on the island, from riding dirt bikes to using tractors for agriculture.

Batsulwin Brown, Elem's vice chair, said when the tribe met with Gates they asked that burial items not be removed, but artifacts could be taken for analysis.

He added that they only met for 10 minutes, and he didn't even consider it a meeting. “As the vice chairman that does not meet consultation.”

Later in the discussion, Batsulwin Brown would state that Gates requested a tribal monitor be present during the archaeological study but was denied by the county because Nady didn't want it.

CEQA process doesn't allow consideration of sacredness

Schrag argued that there is no evidence that unique artifacts exist where the ground will be disturbed for the project. He said Nady should be allowed to proceed with his “small project,” which included “two little residences.” According to planning documents, the main residence would be 2,930 square feet in size, with the cabin to be 1,258 square feet in size.

An EIR would offer no more protections, said Schrag, and would delay the project and increase costs.

Parker, who rose to respond to Schrag, said, “Mr. Schrag's version of history is very interesting but not factual in any way whatsoever.”

He stated that in a phone conversation with Gates on April 28, 2010, Gates told him that his original draft report called for a focused EIR, but that Nady forced Gates and the county to recommend only monitoring. Parker also claimed that Community Development Director Rick Coel let Nady edit the report.

“That's just absurd. That's not what happened,” said Coel, who sat across the table from Schrag and Nady.

Coel said it was unfortunate that Gates was not there. “I don't have too much faith in the comments being made today.”

He said that in his department's opinion, there was not enough archaeological material found on the island to warrant a full EIR.

Coel said the project has evolved over the last several years, with Nady going to kit-built, prefabricated structures to minimize soil disturbance. Taking all things into account, Coel said staff felt the project has a sufficient mitigation and monitoring plan in place to protect existing resources.

Nady has a “use by right” to build the buildings on the property, said Coel, explaining that CEQA was triggered by the grading permit due to the possibility of resources.

Rushing was concerned about what wasn't included in the CEQA considerations.

She said the island remains a political and religious center for the tribe. “We're told on one side it's about emotion,” but it's not, she said.

The island has been historically important to the tribe, which is recounted in oral tradition. “It seems that that oral tradition has some weight, and the cultural tradition has some weight” in the process, said Rushing.

Coel said county staff considered what CEQA guidelines allowed them to consider.

“We could not consider the sacredness, we could not get into the emotions of the issue,” said Coel, adding that he sympathized with the tribes.

He said the property has been in private hands for some time, and he said he personally would have loved to have seen Parker work with the Elem to identify funding sources in order to approach Nady about purchasing the land.

“Why that didn't happen I don't know,” said Coel, adding that there was a “six year window of opportunity.”

Ultimately, Coel said of Nady, “It's his land. He has that right in our local land use code.”

Coel added that the situation is “sad for all sides.”

Rushing said she felt bad for the Nadys, to have purchased the property and be put through a long and difficult process.

At the same time, “It's been such a tragedy for the Elem people and all the Pomo people,” she said.

Rushing said the basis of her decision was what was found on the island, and her concerns that the material wasn't allowed to be removed for review and analysis.

Supervisor Rob Brown said that the discussion on the issue had gotten too broad, and had turned into a referendum on righting a wrong from 150 years ago.

“This comes down to private property ownership,” said Brown, adding, “Private property ownership is not based on seniority.”

He said he tried to think of another county project that has been subject to so much scrutiny. “This is a house that somebody's getting ready to build. It's not a Walmart store.”

Brown said the issue has been taken seriously by the county and its staff, with the mitigation and monitoring plan far exceeding anything the county had asked for in EIRs it had done.

“In this case, EIR is code for 'Let's stop this project,'” Brown said.

Supervisors Jeff Smith and Jim Comstock agreed with Brown, while Farrington agreed with Rushing.

Brown made all three motions, all of which were seconded by Smith and passed with 3-2 votes.

Lake County News was unable to reach Dr. Gates at the end of the day to ask for comment on statements made about him and his work during the meeting.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.

The workshop will begin at 1:30 p.m. in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., to discuss the proposed Lake County Housing Element Update.

The housing element is an assessment of housing needs and issues facing the unincorporated areas of the county.

The Lake County Community Development Department and Housing Element Advisory Committee have been working together for the past year to complete an update of the Housing Element previously adopted in 2004.

The update includes information on special housing needs and constraints, existing housing stock conditions, future housing needs, and an inventory of local, state and federal housing and financing programs.

The update also includes an inventory of lands suitable for residential development and detailed goals, policies and implementation measures aimed at improving housing in Lake County.

This workshop will provide an opportunity for the public to come together and identify constraints and propose solutions to housing issues facing Lake County.

The public hearing is intended to be a workshop between the public, county staff, the Housing Element Advisory Committee and local decision-makers.

Community members are encouraged to participate in this dialogue and assist in providing suggestions and comments on the proposed housing element update.

Upon the determination of the Board of Supervisors that the document is adequate it will be submitted to the state of California, Department of Housing and Community Development for a 60-day review.

Upon completion of this review by the Department of Housing and Community Development, the housing element update will be scheduled for the Board of Supervisors consideration.

For more information about this public workshop and the housing element update, please contact Kevin Ingram in the Lake County Community Development Department at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or 707-263-2221.

The housing element update is available for review electronically at www.co.lake.ca.us/cdd or viewed below.

Copies of the draft Housing Element update are also available at the County libraries, and at the Community Development Department located on the Third Floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St. in Lakeport.

Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews.

2011 Lake County Housing Element Draft