Case No. S194708 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ______
SIERRA CLUB,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, Respondent. ______
COUNTY OF ORANGE, Real Party in Interest.
After a Decision by the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division 3, Case No. G044138 Orange County Superior Court Honorable James J. Di Cesare No. 30-2009-00121878-CU-WM-CJC ______APPLICATION OF 212 GIS PROFESSIONALS AND 23 GIS ORGANIZATIONS TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER SIERRA CLUB AND [PROPOSED] AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ______
Victor J. Otten, Esq. (S.B.N. 165800) Brigid Joyce, Esq. (S.B.N. 223271) Otten & Joyce, LLP 3620 Pacific Coast Hwy, Suite 100 Torrance, California 90505 Phone: 310-378-8533
Attorneys for Amici Curiae 212 GIS Professionals and 23 GIS Organizations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...... 1 I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...... 1 II. AMICI CURIAE’S REASON FOR FILING ...... 2 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF ...... 4 I. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 II. LEGAL ANALYSIS ...... 6 A. Orange County’s Position is the Result of Misinterpreted Fact ...... 7 1. Orange County Fabricated an Incorrect Definition of “Computer Mapping System” ...... 8 2. The County Has Misinterpreted the Definition of GIS ..... 11 3. A “Computer Mapping System” Consists Solely of Software; It Does Not Consist of Both Software and Data ...... 15 4. The County’s OC Landbase Database is Not Resident In a GIS ...... 15 5. The OC Landbase Is Not a Computer Mapping System, and Should Not Be Exempt Under Section 6254.9 ...... 16
B. GIS Database Structure is Essential for Using GIS to Analyze Parcel Data ...... 17 C. Likely Harmful Consequences of Upholding the 4th District Court’s Opinion ...... 18 1. Public Oversight of Government Decisions is Threatened ...... 18 2. If GIS-Readable Databases are Considered Exempt as Computer Mapping Systems, Most Government Data Could be Removed From Public Scrutiny ...... 20
i
3. A Decision Supporting Orange County May Reverse a Meaningful Trend Toward Greater Public Access To Our Governments’ Data ...... 21 4. Threat to Enforcement of the Santa Clara County Decision ...... 23
5. Threat to People Living Outside of California ...... 24 6. Efficient Coordination of Data By Diverse Government Agencies is Threatened ...... 25 D. National Policy Supports Public Record Access to GIS Parcel Basemap Data ...... 26 1. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) ...... 26 2. National States’ Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) ...... 27 E. Access to County GIS Basemap Databases is Vital to California’s Governance ...... 30
F. Meaning of the Terms “Macro-Programming” and “Mapping System” ...... 34 G. EXCEL Analogy to Understand the Relationship Between Software and Data ...... 36 1. Starting the Software Without Data ...... 37 2. Importing Data in Compatible Format ...... 37 3. Programming Specific Software Tools ...... 38 III. CONCLUSION ...... 39 CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT ...... 41
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES California Cases County of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct. (California First Amendment Coalition) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301 ...... 4 Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange County (2011) previously
published at 195 Cal.App.4th 1537 [125 Cal.Rptr.3d 913] ...... 28,29
Statutes California Government Code §6254.9 ...... passim California Rules of Court section 8.520 ...... 1,2
Other Authorities Attorney General’s Opinion 88 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen 153 (2005) ...... 21 Wade and Sommer (Editors) A to Z GIS (2001) ...... 11,12 Webster’s 3rd New International Dictionary ...... 35
Websites
iii
APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF AND INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 8.520(f), Amici Curiae
212 GIS Professionals and 23 GIS Organizations respectfully request leave to file the attached Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Petitioner Sierra
Club.1
I. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE
The Amici Curiae are comprised of 212 GIS professionals who are experienced with, and knowledgeable about, the workings and application of geographic information systems (hereinafter “GIS”) and associated technologies. Also represented are 23 professional associations comprising, and representing, the interests of GIS professionals and their community of GIS users, developers, implementers, maintainers and teachers.
Amici Curiae have been working with Geographic Information
System (GIS) technology for years and in many cases, for decades. They use this technology to analyze problems with facts that relate to the location of physical infrastructure, natural resources and people. They recommend action to solve problems based on geographic analysis. They assist both public agencies and private companies in the use of GIS technology. They teach the use of GIS in educational institutions, and recommend public
1 Attached as Appendix A is a list of the individual GIS professionals and GIS organizations constituting Amici Curiae.
1 policies regarding the use of GIS and the geographic information it operates upon. They create, analyze and maintain the geographic data2 that is the subject of the Sierra Club v. Superior Court (County of Orange) Opinion.
II. AMICI CURIAE’S REASON FOR FILING
Amici Curiae work frequently with GIS-compatible data related to land parcels that is created by public agencies, and they are concerned about the potential harm that could come from rescinding the public domain status of this data. If Orange County, and perhaps all California counties, were allowed to sell their GIS-formatted parcel basemap data at prices higher than the cost of duplication, then citizens, private organizations and government agencies would be limited or excluded from access to this vital informational resource. Amici Curiae could be constrained in their professional practice, and so could their partners, their colleagues and their clients.
Amici Curiae are grateful that the Supreme Court is reviewing this case. The [Proposed] Amicus Curiae Brief offers their professional expertise for the Court’s consideration.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court section 8.520(f)(4) (A) and
(B), this Brief has been authored by Amicus Curiae co-signer Bruce Joffe and counsel Brigid Joyce, Esq. No contributions have been made in
2 Although technically “data” is a plural noun, Amici Curiae use it as a singular noun representing the collection of a mass of individual informational elements.
2
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
I. INTRODUCTION
As with the 6th District Court of Appeal’s decision3 which required
Santa Clara County to provide its land parcel basemap data to the
California First Amendment Coalition in the same GIS-readable format that it uses internally, Amici Curiae assert that precisely the same kind of data was under review by the 4th District Court of Appeal which upheld Orange
County’s claim that its data is exempt from the PRA. This data—land parcel geometry and associated descriptive attributes (such as Assessor’s
Parcel Number, site address, owner, valuation and tax information)—is created and maintained by county government. This data is organized, stored, analyzed, and displayed in computer database files using GIS software.
County governments use GIS-formatted database files to conduct their mandated duties. Amici Curiae believe this data is a public record under the Public Records Act (hereinafter “PRA”) because it is used by government agencies to make decisions and take actions that affect the public’s business, for example, property tax assessments, land use permit and variance determinations, and deployment of emergency services. The public must be allowed to see and analyze the County’s data in exactly the
3 County of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct. (California First Amendment Coalition) (2009) 170 Cal.App.4th 1301.
4 same format that the County uses, in order to understand, evaluate, and hold its public servants accountable for their actions.
Amici Curiae offer the following advice, based on their technical expertise, for the Court's consideration:
A. As used in the so-called “software exemption,”
§6254.9(b) of the PRA,4 “computer mapping system” (CMS)
refers to software and only software; it does not include data.
Similarly, the term “geographic information system” (GIS),
while not used in §6254.9(b) or anywhere else in §6254.9,
would refer only to software and would not include data in
the context of a "software exemption" to public records.
Orange County is mistaken about, and has misstated, the
nature of “computer mapping systems” (CMS) and
“geographic information systems” (GIS). GIS-formatted
geographic data should not be considered different from any
other public record data that government agencies use in
conducting the people's business.
B. GIS-compatible database structure is an intrinsic and
4 California Government Code section 6254.9 states, in relevant part: “(a) Computer software developed by a state or local agency is not itself a public record under this chapter. The agency may sell, lease, or license the software for commercial or noncommercial use. (b) As used in this section, "computer software" includes computer mapping systems, computer programs, and computer graphics systems.” (Gov. Code §6254.9.)
5
necessary part of Orange County’s OC Landbase. The
information offered by Orange County as paper copies of its
parcel maps, or as .pdf image files of those maps, is an
incomplete and inadequate response to a PRA request for
GIS-readable parcel basemap data.
C. The consequences of removing GIS-readable parcel data
from the public domain threatens citizens, other counties, and
cities in many ways.
D. Removing GIS-readable parcel data from the public
domain counters explicit national and Federal data policies.
E. Some counties’ policy of excluding their GIS-readable
parcel data from the public domain is currently causing
expensive, negative impacts on California state government.
F. The 4th District Court, and Orange County, may have
misunderstood the concept of “system” in the context of
section 6254.9(b).
G. Amici Curiae present an analogy to better understand the
relationship between software and data.
II. LEGAL ANALYSIS
Amici Curiae’s plain meaning understanding of the word “includes” in the phrase “computer software includes computer mapping systems, computer programs, and computer graphics systems,” means a listing of
6 examples of computer software. Amici Curiae have worked with these listed items and know them to be software of various types, and only software. They do not include nor imply the data upon which the software acts. Nevertheless, since the 4th District Court accepted Orange County’s proposition that “includes” is used to expand the meaning of “software” rather than simply to provide examples of software, Amici Curiae offer the following corrections for the Court’s review to Orange County's misinterpretation of technical facts concerning GIS and CMS.
A. Orange County's Position is the Result of Misinterpreted Fact
Orange County claims that its database (called “OC Landbase”), which is in GIS file format, constitutes part of a “computer mapping system.”5 The County claims that as part of a computer mapping system, its OC Landbase is a computer mapping system, and is therefore exempt from the public records act because section 6254.9(b) expands the term
“computer software” to include the data which computer mapping system software manipulates. Amici Curiae, all being GIS professionals, disagree with this assertion. Orange County's OC Landbase database is not part of a computer mapping system (CMS), which is a specific kind of software, distinct and different from a Geographic Information System (GIS).
Furthermore, the plain language meaning of “computer mapping system” in
5 Orange County’s Answer Brief On the Merits (“Answer Br.”), p. 3.
7 section 6254.9(b) refers to a system of software modules and does not include the data upon which the software acts.
The problem with section 6254.9(b) is that “computer mapping system” was not defined by the Legislature. In its Answer Brief to this
Court, Orange County has proposed several statements about its OC
Landbase, Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and computer mapping systems (CMS). Orange County has tried to define “computer mapping system” in such a way that its “OC Landbase” database would be included in the PRA’s software exemption. Amici Curiae do not agree with the
County's definitions.
1. Orange County Fabricated an Incorrect Definition of “Computer Mapping System”
The County has frequently stated in its Answer Brief that
“‘Computer mapping system’ is another term6 (an early term7) for geographic information system or ‘GIS’.” Amici Curiae advise the Court that a “computer mapping system” is not a GIS. Amici Curiae agree with
Bruce Joffe’s testimony in the trial court,8 wherein he described GIS as an advanced form of mapping technology that has developed over more than
40 years. He, and Amici Curiae here, characterize the development of this
6 Answer Br., p 4. 7 Answer Br., p. 9, p. 21. 8 Superior Court of California, Case No. 30-2009-121878, Honorable James J. Di Cesare, Judge Presiding, Reporter's Partial Transcript, November 5, 2009, pp. RT-000060 (p. 22) to RT-000062 (p. 24).
8 technology as follows:
Computer Graphics - enabled users to draw lines, arcs, and
closed shapes;
Computer Aided Drafting - enabled users to draw lines, arcs,
and shapes at precise lengths, and precise angles;
Automated Mapping (also called “computer-aided mapping”)
- enabled precise lines and shapes to be located in various
geographic coordinate systems that reference the curvature of
the Earth;
Automated Mapping / Facility Management (AM/FM) -
enables each mapped line and shape to link to an “attribute
record” containing descriptive characteristic data;
Geographic Information System - encodes the mapped lines
and shapes with “topology” that enables the computer to
determine what is inside or outside of a closed shape, whether
another closed shape (for example, a property parcel) is
adjacent to, or near, a subject parcel, and to determine how
linear features (like roads) connect as a network.
Where section 6254.9(b) says “computer software” includes
“computer mapping systems,” it is referring to the third item on this list
(Automated Mapping, also called computer-aided mapping). Where it says computer software includes “computer graphics systems,” it is referring to
9 the first item on the list. These are not “early forms of GIS” as Orange
County posits, but different technologies.
It is important to recognize that the development of these software technologies was not strictly sequential. GIS software existed in 1988, albeit with fewer capabilities than modern GIS software. The distinguishing feature of GIS was, and is, its topological encoding, i.e., its database structure.
In 1985, Professor Kenneth Dueker, of Portland State University, published a paper in the “Proceedings of the Digital Representations of
Spatial Knowledge” (Auto-Carto VII conference) in which he offered a distinctive definition for both geographic information systems (GIS) and computer mapping systems:9
“A GIS is defined as a specialized information system in
which locational identifiers are attached to data for spatial
analysis and/or mapping. ... Importantly, a GIS allows the
spatial collation of separately collected data. [emphasis
added] Cartographic modeling, or overlaying, is employed
for analysis across layers of data to express the spatial
relationship among the variables.
9 See
10
On the other hand, computer-aided mapping is a more limited
display of layers of data with the ability to select layers,
window, scale, and display, but without the ability for
analysis across layers."
This distinction was well known to technical analysts in the 1980s, and could have been made available to the Legislature in 1988 when they considered the meaning of “computer mapping system.” Amici Curiae believe that if the Legislature wanted to include “geographic information systems” (GIS) in an expanded inclusion, it would have explicitly used the term “GIS,” as it has been in common use by industry professionals since the 1970s.10
2. The County Has Misinterpreted the Definition of GIS
Orange County's Answer Brief quotes the first of two sentences of the definition of GIS taken from a book published by ESRI,11 the leading developer of GIS software (Answer Br., p. 4):
“GIS is an integrated collection of computer software and data used to view and manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial processes.”
The County quotes the ESRI definition frequently in its Brief, to
10 The terms were well known by professionals because Intergraph (maker of AM/FM software) and ESRI (maker of GIS software) were in fierce competition during the 1980s. 11 Wade and Sommer (Editors), A to Z GIS (2001) at p. 90.
11 assert that “GIS” is both software and data (interpreting “integrated collection”). This quotation was promoted by ESRI (the leading market supplier of GIS software) as well as by many GIS consultants (including
Bruce Joffe) because it was necessary to explain to new users of GIS software that additional elements are needed before the GIS software could perform the types of analysis for which it was purchased. Like any software, GIS software operates on data. Without data, no software will perform specific functions for its user.
The quoted definition was not intended to link data as an intrinsic part of a GIS such that a county’s parcel basemap could not exist without its GIS software; nor does the definition intend that GIS software could not exist without a specific set of data. In fact, many cities share their GIS- formatted data with other cities and with their counties, each one using its own GIS software. A GIS-compatible database can be read and manipulated by many different GIS software programs. Conversely, a user’s GIS software can read and analyze many GIS-formatted databases.
Orange County further misinterpreted, or misrepresented, the definition by omitting its second sentence, namely, “[a] GIS provides a framework for gathering and organizing spatial data and related information so that it can be displayed and analyzed.”12 Clearly, a “framework” for
12 Wade and Sommer, supra.
12 organizing data is not the same thing as the data itself. The County may have been cognizant of this when it characterized the sentence as a
“substitute description” in page 22 of its Answer Brief. (Answer Br., p. 22.)
This second sentence of the definition is part of the full, original definition.
In trying to discredit it as a “substitute,” the County appears to be misrepresenting the intent of its meaning.
Taken together, these two sentences indicate that there is a larger context of elements that are necessary for the GIS software to provide expected benefits.13 In fact, GIS software and a database populated with digital map data are insufficient for efficient operation. A database model must be designed to structure the data in a database; application programming (macro programs) must be created to call a selected set of
GIS software commands in a specific order so as to perform specific functions; staff must have training to learn geographic information technology so they know how to operate and use the GIS software; administrative procedures have to be established to update the data, maintain its integrity, and recover when database corruption occurs; and finally, this system of technology and people need to have adequate
13 Jack Dangermond, President of ESRI, confirms this in a letter sent to the Court, January 31, 2012, wherein he states, “[w]hile ESRI has published the statement that a GIS is made up of ‘data and software,’ the intention of this statement was to describe the conceptual context of a ‘Geographic Information System,’ not to imply that the data is inseparable from the software system.” (See Appendix C).
13 funding. All these factors are necessary for the large concept—efficiently operating GIS to conduct agency duties effectively.14
Perhaps the initial quotation should have said, “GIS software integrates locational data to view and manage information about geographic places, analyze spatial relationships, and model spatial processes.” Perhaps a different term for this larger concept should have been coined, something like “spatial data infrastructure.” The definition was not formulated as precisely as it turns out to be necessary to avoid a reader like Orange County from making a too- literal misinterpretation of its meaning. The term “GIS” has two meanings: one is the software system that creates and manipulates digital maps, the other indicates the larger context in which GIS software can operate effectively.
Orange County exploited this ambiguity of definition to argue that its digital map data should be exempt as software. In both cases, nevertheless, “GIS” is not the subject of section 6254.9(b), which refers to CMS, “computer mapping system.”
The Amici Curiae further note that Orange County's use (misuse) of the definition of GIS as published in 2001 is not relevant to the meaning of
14 GIS customers typically buy GIS software and then acquire existing GIS- readable data, or they use GIS software to digitize their paper maps, encoding the parcel geometry into GIS-readable format. Simultaneously, they develop (or engage experts to develop) application programs and administrative procedures to enable them to use the GIS software efficiently and to maintain their data systematically.
14
"computer mapping systems" as the Legislature understood it in 1988, when
§6254.9(b) was written.
3. A "Computer Mapping System" Consists Solely of Software; It Does Not Consist of Both Software and Data
On page 4 of its Answer Brief Orange County's brief, it argues, “[a] computer mapping system does not consist solely of software. It consists of both software and data.” (Answer Br., p. 4.) Orange County misunderstood the definition of GIS (mistakenly asserting that GIS intrinsically includes data), and it has tried to attach that misunderstanding to an incorrect definition of
“computer mapping system” (mistakenly asserting that CMS is a kind of GIS).
Its statement therefore, draws an incorrect conclusion because both premises are incorrect. This fallacious conclusion renders the County’s argument invalid when it says that its OC Landbase, as a GIS database, is a kind of CMS which was meant to be exempted by section 6254.9(b).
4. The County's OC Landbase Database is Not Resident In a GIS
While the OC Landbase was created with Automated
Mapping/Facility Management (AM/FM) software, and then updated and maintained with GIS software (both software systems made by the
Intergraph Corporation), the data does not reside in a GIS system. The
GIS-compatible data is stored in an Oracle Spatial relational database management system (rdbms). Many kinds of data are stored for selective
15 retrieval in the Oracle rdbms, including data in GIS-readable format, but the
Oracle system is not considered a GIS. Indeed, Oracle promotes usage of its rdbms for all the functions of an organization, as an Enterprise
Information System. Since January 1, 2009, Orange County’s policy has been to provide its data to subscribers in only one format, that of the Oracle rdbms.15
5. The OC Landbase Is Not a Computer Mapping System, and Should Not Be Exempt Under Section 6254.9
Orange County presented four incorrect premises, described in paragraphs (1) through (4) above, from which it draws an incorrect conclusion that its OC Landbase database is exempt from the PRA as a
“computer mapping system.” The OC Landbase is data in a GIS- compatible file format, residing in a relational database management system that is not a GIS. GIS software is not the same as computer mapping system software. While data is necessary for any software to perform its functions, neither the data processed by a computer mapping system, nor the data processed by GIS software, constitutes an intrinsic component of that software.
The OC Landbase data created by Orange County’s mapping software, and stored in Orange County's database, is used in GIS-
15 See Appendix B, memo from Raymond L. Mathe, Orange County Surveyor, April 27, 2009.
16 compatible format by the County to conduct the public's business. As such, it is public record and must be made available in the same format to members of the public that request it. The Legislature did not explicitly exempt the data, nor did it explicitly exempt the database format that GIS software needs to read the data. Amici Curiae believe that it would not have enacted such a far-reaching exemption by indirect and ambiguous implication.
B. GIS Database Structure is Essential for Using GIS to Analyze Parcel Data
GIS-compatible database structure embeds information about where each element of parcel basemap data is stored in a file, and how each element is related to all the other elements. This structural information is necessary for analyzing and viewing the parcel basemap data with GIS software. The GIS database structure is the essential characteristic that an agency creates when it converts (digitizes) its paper maps into GIS- formatted basemap files (such as Orange County's “OC Landbase”). The
GIS-compatible database structure is needed to enable the County to conduct its mandated operations in an efficient and effective manner using
GIS software. The parcel basemap “information” contained in the proffered substitutes offered by Orange County (e.g., .pdf images of scanned paper maps) does not contain this structural component of the data.
Paper maps and scanned images cannot be queried and analyzed
17 systematically. Because GIS-readable format is necessary for the County to conduct the public’s business, the structural component of the parcel basemap information, i.e., the OC Landbase database itself, must be classified as public record to enable the public to review, understand, and possibly challenge the County's actions.
C. Likely Harmful Consequences of Upholding the 4th District Court’s Opinion
A definitive judicial opinion that interprets Government Code section
6254.9 as exempting GIS-formatted data from public record will have far- reaching consequences. It is unlikely that these consequences were envisioned or anticipated by the Legislature when the software exemption was passed. It is even more unlikely that the Legislature would intend these consequences without explicitly defining what it meant by “computer mapping system.” It is reasonable to assume that the common meaning of
“computer mapping system,” being a type of software, was the
Legislature’s intention.
1. Public Oversight of Government Decisions is Threatened
Government decisions and actions are increasingly based on analysis of complex factors that pertain to location; and such analysis is conducted using GIS software on GIS-compatible databases. Examples include analyzing property values consistently for taxation, routing emergency response vehicles when time is critical, assessing the development potential
18 versus need for environmental protection of undeveloped land. The public has a right to know answers to questions like, “is my property being assessed fairly,” “are public services like police and pothole repair being allocated equitably,” “are zoning variance decisions being made impartially, ” and “why locate a certain development in my neighborhood?”
In order to keep our government agencies accountable to us, the public must have access to the same data the government uses—in the same database structure—so that we can check those analyses and challenge them if warranted.
The public has a large responsibility: to be vigilant, to be fair and objective, and to provide itself with the software and technical skill necessary to replicate and review the government’s data before possibly challenging government's actions. Our government agencies have the responsibility to provide the data they used, in the same format that they used for their analysis, along with a thorough and truthful description of that analysis, to the public upon request. If the 4th District Court decision stands, the citizens of Orange County will not be able to review and oversee the actions of their County Assessor, Sheriff, Public Works, or Planning departments, unless they can afford to pay the price for the County’s data.
Moreover, citizens of constituent cities that use Orange County’s basemap would be similarly restricted from reviewing their cities’ actions. Amici
Curiae ask the Supreme Court to reverse the 4th District Court's decision.
19
2. If GIS-Readable Databases are Considered Exempt as Computer Mapping Systems, Most Government Data Could be Removed From Public Scrutiny
Of the many kinds of data that county agencies create, maintain, and use to conduct their mandated duties, approximately 80% of those data pertain to a specific location. Public works infrastructure is located with geographic coordinates; social service recipients are located with street addresses; property parcels are located with both site address and their geographic coordinates on a parcel basemap. This data resides in databases
(similar to Orange County's Oracle-based information system) that integrate a subject’s descriptive characteristics with its GIS-readable location. If the presence of GIS-formatted data were to exempt these databases as being part of a “computer mapping system,” then nearly all local government data could be exempted from public access under the PRA. It is inconceivable that the California Legislature would enable such a sweeping exemption without an explicit statement of intent and without a clear definition of
“computer mapping system.” Neither is present in section 6254.9.
20
3. A Decision Supporting Orange County May Reverse a Meaningful Trend Toward Greater Public Access To Our Governments’ Data
Since the Attorney General’s opinion (88 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen 153 (2005))16 was issued in October 2005, fourteen Counties have changed the price of their GIS parcel basemap data from more than the cost of duplication (over
$300) to PRA-compliant cost of duplication, or less.
These counties include:
Contra Costa
Fresno
Humboldt
Imperial
Kings
Los Angeles
Merced
Nevada
Riverside
San Bernardino
San Diego
Santa Clara
16 “Parcel boundary map data maintained by a county assessor in an electronic format is subject to public inspection and copying under provisions of the California Public Records Act.” Id. at p. 2.
21
Santa Cruz
Ventura
Many of these counties, for example Los Angeles and San Diego, changed their data access policy because they accepted the Attorney General's opinion as a governing interpretation of the PRA. Santa Clara challenged the interpretation in court and lost. Subsequent to the Santa Clara decision,
Merced county changed its data access policy. Upholding the 4th District
Court’s opinion that GIS-formatted basemap data is exempt from the PRA may encourage the remaining counties to continue charging exorbitantly obstructive fees for their data. Those counties include:
County Data Sale Price
Orange $375,000 ($75,000 per year, 5 year commitment)17
Solano $13,400
San Luis Obispo $12,000
Madera $3,123
Lassen $2,500
17 On December 13, 2011, the Orange County Board of Supervisors reduced the OC Landbase price to between $1,000 and $5,000. Nevertheless, the County continues to claim that this data is not subject to the PRA; it continues to require restrictions of use in its licensing agreement; and it reserves the right to change this price at any time. Therefore, the question before the Court, and the severity of clarifying the "software exemption" for data remains as important as ever. See Appendix D, Orange County Supervisors Resolution, 12-13-11.
22
Del Norte $1,500
Sierra $1,000
Alpine $650
Further, upholding the 4th District Court’s opinion may incite some counties, like San Diego, to revert back to charging high prices for its GIS parcel basemap data.
4. Threat to Enforcement of the Santa Clara County Decision
In April, 2009, Santa Clara County provided a copy of its GIS basemap database to the California First Amendment Coalition, following the 6th District Appellate Court’s decision. Since that time, other parties
(both private entities and constituent city governments) have requested a copy of Santa Clara County’s GIS basemap database. Amici Curiae are informed and believe and thereon assert requesters have been provided with the same copy of the data (as of April 2009) in spite of the fact that the
County continues to update its database.18 Although the County complied with the specific direction of the Court’s decision, to provide the then- current data to the PRA requestor, it appears to be violating the principle of the PRA which is to provide current data to a requestor upon request.
Santa Clara’s action needs to be challenged in court, but the Orange County
18 See Appendix E and Appendix F, email from Santa Clara County to Steve Golden (December 2010) and Jeff Hobbs (May 2010), respectively. Both emails stating that “the latest record of their database is 3rd Quarter, 2009.”
23
Opinion creates doubt about Santa Clara’s PRA responsibilities. Unless the
Supreme Court reverses the 4th District Court’s Opinion, the citizens and constituent cities of Santa Clara County will remain without full access to their government’s data as well, and will thereby be unable to review their government’s decisions as is the case in Orange County.
5. Threat to People Living Outside of California
The problem of public access to governmental GIS databases is not unique to California. Each state has its own variation of a Public Record
Act similar to California's. National organizations that represent GIS professionals—such as AAG (Association of American Geographers),
CaGIS (Cartography and Geographic Information Society), NSGIC
(National States' Geographic Information Council) and URISA (Urban and
Regional Information Systems Association)—are concerned that a reversal of California's recent trend (of making more GIS databases available as public records) may be replicated in other counties and states nationwide.
California is a trendsetter.
Further, many people who live outside of California have the same interests in having access to California-based government data as do
California residents. Many own land in California; many have families who receive services from local and state governments in California; and many care about keeping our democracy functional by keeping government action transparent to its citizens.
24
6. Efficient Coordination of Data By Diverse Government Agencies is Threatened
GIS-readable parcel data provides a unique capability to integrate information across agency and jurisdictional boundaries. While collected and initially displayed in the Assessor's or Surveyor’s office, the parcel basemap serves as a common geographic reference for other agencies’ decisions and actions. Other County agencies and cities use the County’s
GIS basemap for locating the related data they use to conduct their duties.19
This integrating capability greatly increases efficient operation and reduces duplication of effort and of funds expended.
The ramifications of removing GIS parcel data from the public domain are far-reaching and may cause unanticipated consequences. Other public agencies and city offices in Orange County would not be able to release the base data used as the foundation of their decision making. Thus, the public effect of exempting this data from the PRA may be widespread and devastating to the public’s right to know the operations of all its government agencies.20
19 For example, the welfare department can locate recipients on a GIS basemap to identify fraudulent recipients who use multiple addresses of corner lots; and police can map crimes on the GIS basemap to discover forensic patterns. 20 Limiting access to GIS-formatted parcel data could obstruct the public participation and review processes required by many California and Federal statutes, such as the California Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Planning Act, where GIS databases are commonly used to meet legal requirements.
25
Activities of non-governmental users of the GIS basemap would be reduced also. In this case, Sierra Club wants to find “landlocked” parcels
(without street access) in order to maximize the impact of its purchasing property for environmental preservation. Orange County’s price and restrictions impedes Sierra Club’s limited-fund project.
D. National Policy Supports Public Record Access to GIS Parcel Basemap Data
1. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC)
The FGDC is a 19-member interagency Federal committee charged with implementing a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), to enable the open and shared use of geographic information. FGDC promotes the coordinated development, use, sharing, and dissemination of geospatial data on a national basis. NSDI is defined by Executive Order 12906 21 as
“the technologies, policies, and people necessary to promote sharing of geospatial data throughout all levels of government, the private and non- profit sectors, and the academic community.” The goal of this
Infrastructure is to reduce duplication of effort among agencies, improve quality and reduce costs related to geographic information, to make geographic data more accessible to the public, to increase the benefits of using available data, and to establish key partnerships with states, counties,
21 (See
26 cities, tribal nations, academia and the private sector to increase data availability.
Federal policy encourages the sharing of geographic data among all users because it produces significant savings for data collection, and it enhances decision making. The sharing of geographic data is of particular concern precisely because the data is expensive to create and maintain. If this Court overturns the 4th District Court's opinion, it would be supporting national goals.
2. National States’ Geographic Information Council (NSGIC)
In 2011, NSGIC, a 20-year organization comprising GIS professionals working in and with state governments, issued a recommendation of best practices for data distribution policy of government agencies.22 This guideline articulates NSGIC’s core principle that “[a]ccess to public records is an essential component of our democracy that keeps citizens informed and our government accountable. These records include geospatial data produced or maintained using taxpayer resources.” It concludes with the recommendation that, “calls on government administrators, geospatial
22 (Available for download from at:
27 professionals and concerned citizens to further advance the use of important geospatial data assets and to ensure that they remain freely accessible.”
The NSGIC document dispels several myths about GIS data, including the myth that organizations can pay for GIS operations through geospatial data charges. In fact, Orange County, which stands out as one of the highest revenue producers from its data sales, reports that only 26% of its
GIS operation comes from data sales.23 Most counties that sell data receive far less.
NSGIC’s best practices recommendation observes that most public agencies derive great benefit from their use of GIS to analyze and display geospatial data. Benefits include “cost savings from more efficient operations, revenue enhancement from more thorough taxation, and better, faster, and more intelligent delivery of services to the public.” If this was not the case, agencies would stop using and funding their GIS operations.
But usage of GIS in local and state government is increasing and becoming more central to the entire enterprise’s information processing profile.
The 4th District Court's opinion states, “[b]y enacting section 6254.9 in
1988, the Legislature encouraged and enabled local governments to develop and maintain computer mapping systems by allowing the agencies to recoup some of their costs.” (Sierra Club v. Superior Court of Orange
County (2011) previously published at 195 Cal.App.4th 1537 [125
23 Answer Br., p. 5
28
Cal.Rptr.3d 913]; Slip Opinion, ("Opn."), p. 15.) And it noted that “the
County argues it spends ‘millions of dollars to maintain and update the OC
Landbase’ . . . and that without licensing fees, the County would be forced to reduce services.” Given the fact that 49 of California’s 58 counties are able to maintain their GIS operations without selling GIS data for more than the cost of duplication, one must ask “why should Orange County's inability to budget for its GIS be reason to distort and redefine the meaning of the PRA?”
Like every other county, Orange County invested a lot of money building its parcel basemap database, and it did so with the understanding that the return on this investment—in terms of more efficient and more effective delivery of mandated services—would be greater than the initial and ongoing costs. Sales of data was not, and should not have been, a consideration, because the County has no mandate to engage in expensive investments for the purpose of making money. Currently, if the County tried to discontinue its GIS operation, it would not be able to conduct the public’s business as well or as inexpensively as it does now with GIS. GIS data pays for its development cost through increased efficiency; and the more it is used, the higher is the return on investment.
29
E. Access to County GIS Basemap Databases is Vital to California's Governance
GIS-formatted parcel data is fundamentally needed by most California state agencies and departments. Five major state organizations have been collecting county-based GIS parcel data to build a consistent, statewide parcel basemap. These organizations include:
California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection (CDFFP)
Caltrans
California Resources Agency
California Emergency Management Agency (CalEMA)
California Board of Equalization (BOE)
As of October, 2010, 99.6% of the GIS data for California's 14 million parcels had been collected. However, six counties’ data (including Orange
County's) can only be used by the agency that collected their data, and only for specific, designated purposes. For example, CDFFP can use Orange
County’s data to fight fires in Orange County, but it cannot share the data with BOE, nor use it for CDFFP fire response planning activities. This is the limitation those counties required of the State in order to release their data without charging their standard sales price. Some other counties also restrict the use of their data, so these five agencies agreed to use the data solely for specific government-to-government purposes. The result is a duplication of effort and higher cost to taxpayers.
30
Access to parcel basemap data is important to California state governance. A recent meeting of the California GIS Council (the multi- agency advisory body to the California Technology Agency) reviewed how
GIS parcel data is critical to four categories of State functions:24
1) Land Use Planning
Open space protection
Broadband mapping
Transportation planning
Environmental management
Land use change
Sustainable communities
2) Revenue and Taxation
Distribution of property tax revenues
Assure uniformity in property tax assessment
Forecast property tax growth
Analyze the impact of Prop 13 on schools/special revenue
districts
Fraud investigation
24 See California GIS Council Minutes, October 6, 2010, at
31
Allocation of the sales tax
3) Emergency Management
Dispatch
Evacuation planning
Contact information
Loss analysis
Event statistics
Emergency planning (both before and after an event)25
Ownership delineation (public/private)
4) Surveying
Land parcels
Taxation boundaries
Administrative boundaries
Land acquisition for highway and infrastructure
construction
25 Lorri Peltz-Lewis, GIS Coordinator for Fire & Aviation Management, US Forest Service, Region 5, has commented, "[a]s we approach what could be a catastrophic fire season, having GIS parcel data available for emergency responders is critical to decision making during all phases of our operation - planning, suppression, response, and restoration. Preventing the horrific images of homes burning, or being wiped out by debris flows, depends on our knowledge of what is on the ground." (See Appendix G, Email from Lorri Peltz-Lewis to Bruce Joffe).
32
The California GIS Council has conducted two implementation studies to plan the building of a statewide, fully-accessible GIS-based data repository.
While many other states have already completed this basic data infrastructure, California’s effort has been hampered primarily by lack of funding and also by the PRA-non-compliant licensing restrictions of some county data originators. Two documents outline California’s approach:26
California GIS Strategic Plan Phase 2: Regional
Participation - May 2008 - describes a plan of collective
collaboration and governance among the “stewards” of
various GIS datasets (including the counties’ parcel
databases) to build a statewide data repository absent a single,
funded state agency.
California Geospatial Framework Draft Data Plan -
September 2006 - describes the kinds of GIS data needed and
used by all levels of government within the state (as well as
private entities) and lists priorities. GIS parcel data is most
important.
If the 4th District Court decision is upheld and more counties restrict access to their GIS parcel data with high cost or prohibitions against sharing the
26 These two California GIS Strategic plan documents may be downloaded from
33 data, it will become even more difficult for California’s state government to amass and analyze data consistently in trying to deal with statewide problems. The extra cost of this inefficiency, as well as the additional costs of procuring and updating the data, will be borne by California’s taxpayers, including county taxpayers who initially funded, and continue to maintain, their county’s GIS operation. The Supreme Court reversal of the 4th
District Court's decision will prevent these negative consequences.
F. Meaning of the Terms “Macro-Programming” and “Mapping System”
As described in the 4th District Court's Opinion, when San Jose apparently tried to exempt its data as well as its software, the Legislature removed words like “computer readable database” from the proposed legislation, and substituted “computer mapping system.” (Opn., p. 13). It is very possible that the Legislature declined to explicitly define “computer mapping system” because undefined, it carried sufficient ambiguity to appear to satisfy San Jose while also satisfying the Legislature’s requirement to preserve the public record status of computer-stored information. Had the Legislature intended to specifically exempt the data that computer mapping software processes, it would have done so explicitly.
The 4th District Court wondered what the purpose of the “inclusion phrase” would be if “the legislative history does not show that any local
34 government or agency sought the ability to recoup the developmental costs of a proprietary computer program associated with a mapping system.”
(Opn., p. 14). However, the experience of users of GIS and CMS software programs is that most users do develop macro programs to make efficient use of the factory-delivered, out-of-the-box software.
For example, in 1988, the City of San Jose digitized its parcel basemap, converting it into a GIS-compatible format, using the Intergraph's
Automated Mapping/Facility Management (AM/FM) software called
"IGDS/DMRS"27 which was the advanced software at that time. To create its map database, City staff had to create a lot of “macro programs” which combined AM/FM software commands in specific order to enable the efficient digitizing of its maps. In addition, the City created macro programs to display and plot its maps with various combinations of data, displayed with specific combinations of line weight, color, and symbology.
These macro programs were user-created software that are exempted by section 6254.9. Amici Curiae believe the 4th District Court was mistaken in surmising that local governments would not be interested in preserving their proprietary rights to software (macro-programs) they had developed.
Amici Curiae believe the 4th District Court misapplied Webster's 3rd
New International Dictionary definition of the word “system” when it
27 This is the same software Orange County used to construct its OC Landbase.
35 concluded that a “complex unity formed of many often diverse parts subject to a common plan or serving a common purpose . . . should include more than solely a computer program component.” (Opn., p. 8). In fact computer programs comprise many different software components that are painstakingly configured together to form a complex unity formed of diverse parts. Software “systems” do not include nor comprise data.
In 1988, as well as today, the “system” of a specific computer software system means an integrated combination of software modules, which are software programs constructed in a modular structure for such functions as data input, user interface, analytical computation, and display of the results. These modules are configured to work together as an integrated “system.” The term “computer mapping system” whether referring (correctly) to an Automated Mapping system circa 1988, or
(incorrectly) to a 2011 GIS software system, uses the word “system” to indicate a combination of diverse software modules. The word “system” in the context of software program modules does not include the data to be processed by the software.
G. EXCEL Analogy to Understand the Relationship Between Software and Data
Suppose one wanted to analyze property tax assessments of parcels similar to one’s own parcel, to see whether similar properties were being
36 taxed similarly. Suppose further, that one was using Excel spreadsheet software to do the analysis.
1. Starting the Software Without Data
To begin, one would start the Excel program, and see an empty grid of blank cells. In order to conduct the analysis, one would input data about selected parcels into the grid. For example, each row would be a separate parcel record, with Column A being the parcel ID, Column B being the square footage of the parcel, Column C could be the assessed valuation,
Column D the number of bedrooms, and so on for all parcel characteristics relevant to the analysis. Obviously, this analysis could not be made without data, but it is wrong to claim that the data is an integral part of the Excel spreadsheet software system. Similarly, GIS software requires data upon which it can perform its functions. GIS software is used to input parcel boundary data, thereby formatting it into GIS-compatible database files.
GIS software then analyzes that data. Without data, GIS doesn't have anything to analyze. Data is necessary in order to perform GIS analysis, but data is not part of a GIS software system.
2. Importing Data in Compatible Format
To continue the analogy, suppose one wanted to import the Assessor’s
Roll into the spreadsheet instead of entering each parcel’s data manually.
One would have to transform the Assessor’s Roll from its native format into a format compatible with Excel software. Fortunately, Excel has the
37 capability to read standard Assessor Roll formats and transform them into its own format (called .xls), automatically. Similarly, GIS software can import parcel basemap data that has been created by other GIS systems and mapping systems, so long as the data is in standard GIS-compatible format.
GIS format is necessary for data to move from one GIS system to another.
A specific dataset is not an intrinsic part of a specific GIS.
3. Programming Specific Software Tools
Finally, imagine the Excel table of parcels populated with their descriptive attributes. In order to analyze the equity of parcel valuation appraisal, one would have to design a series of mathematical computations, such as calculating the average assessed value per square foot for each parcel. Excel software provides the commands to calculate and the methods to construct the calculation formulas. This set of computation formulas is the “macro program” that performs the analysis. It is software created by the user within the substrate of the Excel spreadsheet software.
Similarly, GIS software commands can be assembled to retrieve a complex set of parcel data elements and combine them in specific ways to compute a geographic analysis. Users create “macro programs” that make this process less tedious, faster, and more efficient. These macro programs are software developed by the user to operate within the substrate of GIS or CMS software. Amici Curiae believe that section 6254.9 was established to protect local governments’ proprietary rights to the macro programs that
38 they developed to make the operation of their computer mapping system software, or their GIS software, more efficient.
This hypothetical analysis using Excel spreadsheet software considers the descriptive characteristics of parcels, e.g., their size, appraised valuation, etc. GIS software is necessary to analyze the parcels' locational characteristics, such as their proximity to parks, schools, or land fill dumps, which could strongly affect their appraised value. The same GIS software and user-developed analysis model could be applied to any county's parcel data, and that analytical model would be protected by section 6254.9. The data is not an intrinsic part of the GIS analysis system. Data is only the object of the analysis process. To call GIS data an integral or intrinsic part of a GIS system would mistakenly imply that a specific dataset comprises
GIS.
III. CONCLUSION
Supreme Court reversal of the 4th District Court of Appeal’s decision is necessary to clarify and resolve an ambiguous point of law: that the
“software exclusion” does not apply to the data upon which the software acts. The term “Computer Mapping System” (CMS) does not imply nor include the data that the software processes, and CMS is not the same thing as GIS.
Amici Curiae believe that 4th District Court's Opinion is in direct conflict with the 6th District Court's Published Opinion on the same subject:
39
APPENDIX A – Amici Curiae
Co-signed by following 23 GIS organizations:
Organization Represented by Title
AAG - Association of American Geographers Doug Richardson Executive Director
Advancement Project, Healthy City Chris Ringewald Research Manager
BAAMA - Bay Area Automated Mapping Association, Jeff Hobbs President
Board of Directors
CaGIS - Cartography and Geographic Information Society Eric Anderson Executive Director
CALI - California Association of Licensed Investigators Chris Reynolds CALI President 2010-12
Californians Aware Terry Francke General Counsel
CUGOS - Cascadia Users of Geospatial Open Source Michael P. Gerlek Secretary
Davis Demographics & Planning, Inc. Greg Davis President
DMTI Spatial John Fisher CEO and Chairman
GeoTec Media Todd Danielson Editor, Geospatial Division
GITA - Geospatial Information Technology Association Bob Samborski Executive Director
GreenInfo Network - Larry Orman Executive Director
Information and Mapping in the Public Interest
Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. Steven Myhill-Jones President & CEO
NACIS - North American Cartographic Information Society Eric B. Steiner President
NSGIC - National States Geographic Information Council Dr. Timothy De Troye President
Oregon Natural Desert Association Brent Fenty Executive Director
OSGeo - Open Source Geospatial Foundation Arnulf Christl President
Pacific Institute Matthew Heberger Research Associate
Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation, Joel W. Grube, Ph.D, Directors
Prevention Research Center Paul J. Gruenewald,
Ph.D
Southern California Chapter of URISA Melisa Caric-Lee President
1
Urban Strategies Council Steve Spiker, GISP Director of Research &
Technology
Vector1Media Matt Ball Co-founder & Editor
WIGICC - Wisconsin Geographic Information Coordination JonSchwichtenberg, Council Chair GISP Council
Co-signed by the following 212 individual GIS professionals (their organizational
affiliation is noted for reference purpose, only):
Name Title Agency/Affiliation
Doug Abramson RBF Consulting Senior Vice President
Tony Alex GDR - GIS Data Resources Executive Vice President
Kevin Andras Earth Systems Institute Scientist
David Asbury, GISP Esri Cartographic Projects Cartographer
Arnold W. Barnett, PE, LS Civil Solutions, Inc. GIS Project Manager (retired)
Scott Barnwell City of Asheville, NC IT Services GIS Analyst
Karen Beardsley, Ph.D., University of California - Davis, Managing Director
GISP Information Center for the
Environment
Dr. Lee Benda Earth Systems Institute Director of Program Development
Janel A. Bisacquino Mercer County, NJ, Dept. of GIS Specialist
Transportation and
Infrastructure
David William Bitner Open Source Geospatial Vice President and Chair of the Public Geospatial
Foundation Data Committee
Landon Blake, PLS Redefined Horizons Owner
Andrew Bley Bley Geographics Senior Analyst and Cartographer
Margo Blosser Gorge, GIS Principal GIS Consultant
2
Hood River, Oregon
Mike Bobbitt Mike Bobbitt & Associates Principal
Dr. Earl G. Bossard San Jose State University Emeritus Professor of Urban & Regional Planning
Joshua Brann Thurston County, WA GIS Analyst
Daniel Brenner CalTrans Research Analyst I (GIS)
Janet Brewster no affiliation GIS Manager
Martin Buchert University of Utah, Metropolitan Senior Research Analyst
Research Center
Lori Busch no affiliation Concerned Stakeholder
Clint Cabanero Spatial Development Senior GIS Developer
International
Dick Cameron The Nature Conservancy Senior Conservation Planner
Caverlee Cary University of California, Institute Assistant Director for Program Planning
of East Asian Studies
Tim Case, GISP AutoDesk GIS and Infrastructure Consultant
Bernadette Chasteen RTI International Research GIS Analyst
David Coggeshall Golden Gate Safety Network Program Director
James Cooper, CPP Township of South Brunswick,NJ Deputy Director, Office of Emergency Management
Tripp Corbin, CFM, GISP eGIS Associates, Inc. CEO
Prof. William J. Craig University of Minnesota - Associate Director
Minneapolis, Center for Urban
& Regional Affairs
Patrick Crevelt California Municipality GIS Coordinator
Ken Crouse Independent Consultant GIS Practitioner
Thomas A. D'Angelo ECO Systems Environmental Principal
Consulting
Michael Dangermond ESRI Senior Digital Cartographer
Robert Davis, PLS CalTrans Surveyor, GIS Professional
3
Jerry Davis San Francisco State University, Chair
Dept of Geography & Human
Environmental Studies
Ralph Davis CA Board of Equalization Research Manager (GIS)
Nicholas B Day, L.S. PG & E Chief Surveyor (retired)
Patti Day University of Wisconson- Lecturer
Milwaukee, Department of
Geography
Rebecca Degagne, M.S. Humboldt State University GIS Lecturer
James DeGraff, PLS CalTrans Senior Transportation Surveyor
Marc Delattre CA Dept of Conservation, Senior Engineering Geologist
California Geological Survey
Jennifer C. Dooley City of San Marcos GIS Analyst
Sarah Downs Downchez Energy, Inc. Vice President
Chuck Drinnan eWAM Associates Principal
Mark E. Duewell Missouri Spatial Data Program Manager
Information Service
Clearinghouse
Paul M. Durgin, L.S. Land and Geographic Consultant
Information Systems
Shoreh Elhami, GISP Delaware County, OH, Auditor's GIS Director
Office
Earl Epstein, Ph.D, J.D. Ohio State University - School of Professor
Environment and Natural
Resources
Zach Erbe no affiliation GIS Consultant and Web Developer
Amy Esnard, GISP no affiliation GIS Consultant
Dave Estes Allen County, IN GIS Coordinator
4
Ritchie Eyster U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Meteorologist
Agricultural Research Service
Brad Findlay Interwest Consulting Group GIS Analyst
James Finlay Well Fargo Bank VP Commercial RE Appraisal Manager
Dillon Fitch HDR Engineering Geographic Information Systems Analyst
Bridget Freisthler, Ph.D. UCLA Luskin School of Public Associate Professor
Affairs
John Gallo, Ph.D The Wilderness Society Senior Landscape Ecologist
Hanry Garie Grant Thornton, LLP Senior Manager, Global Public Sector
Charleen Gavette NOAA Fisheries Southwest Region GIS Coordinator
Michael P. Gerlek Flaxen Consulting LLC President
Michael Gilbrook HDR Engineering, Inc. National Technical Director for GIS
Scott Gilliland City of San Leandro Information Technology Specialist (GIS)
Ann Giovacchini CA Dept. of Conservation, Office Associate Environmental Planner
of Mine Reclamation
Holly Glaser, GISP MappaMundiGIS LLC Principal
Steve Golden California municipality Associate Planner / GIS Coordinator
Steve Goldman, GISP CA Dept. of Fish and Game GIS Manager, Biogeographic Data Branch
Margaret L. Gooding LSA Associates GIS and Graphics Specialist
Christopher Grasteit GeoInvoTech GIS Professional
Terri Graumann Alameda County Surveyor's Survey Tech II
office
Mark Greninger Los Angeles County Geographic Information Officer
Lori Gustafson CA Dept. of Fish and Game GIS Analyst
Victoria Haas Haas & Associates GIS Specialist
Brian G. Hammer, Sr. Mojave Water Agency Data Analyst II
Olof Hansen Independent Consultant GIS Data Technologist
5
Michael Hargreaves City of Santa Rosa, Information GIS Coordinator
Technology
Francis Harvey, Ph.D. University of Minnesota, Dept. of Associate Professor
Geography
George Haskett Idaho State University Graduate Student
Dan Herderson, PMP, CFM, Atkins Global Group Manager, Applied Technologies
GISP
Jay Henderson Navagis LLC VP of Global Sales
Jesse Herbert Wagner & Bonsignore, GIS Analyst
Consulting Civil Engineers
Dennis R. Higgins, Jr., GISP King County GIS Center Client Services Manager
Jason Hill San Francisco International GIS Administrator
Airport
Lee Hixson, PLS Hixson Surveying Owner
Jeff Hobbs San Jose Water Co. IT Manager, GIS and Web Technologies
Carol A. Hoernlein, P.E. no affiliation Civil Engineer
Mark C. Hoffman Grand Valley State University, Associate Professor and Director
School of Public, Nonprofit &
Health Administration
Stephen M. Hoffman Intergraph GIS Consultant (retired)
Masoud Hoseyni, Ph.D. DCSE, Inc. President
Bill Huber, Ph.D. Quantitative Decisions Owner
Roger Hurlbert Sage Information Services President
Timothy Hutzley Technology Associates GIS Analyst
International Corporation
Christopher Jacobs City of San Juan Capistrano GIS Specialist
Bruce Joffe, GISP GIS Consultants Principal
Dawn Johnson, GISP Warren County, OH GIS Coordinator
6
Matthew Johnson Denise Duffy & Associates Environmental Scientist / GIS Specialist
David Kallemeyn Fontana Unified School District Facilities Planning Technician
Jeffrey Kapellas CA Water Resources Control Research Program Specialist (GIS)
Board
Raymond Kinser California CAD Solutions President
Dennis Klein, GISP Boundary Solutions, Inc. CEO
Richard A. Knee San Francisco Sunshine Journalist
Ordinance Task Force
Pat Kowta Napa County Geographic Information Officer
Nicholas F. Labedzki, B.Sc., CA Dept. of Parks Surveyor
LS 8827
Gary Lasky Data Nations Consulting Engineering Consultant
Tim Leach, M.S., GISP Tim Leach GIS, LLC Principal
Lorenda Lee City of Chula Vista GIS Specialist
Leanne Lestak University of Colorado - GIS Specialist
INSTAAR
Pat Lineback U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional GIS Coordinator
Sandra Litschert, Ph.D Earth Systems Institute Staff Scientist
Glenn Locke, PMP, GISP Michael Baker Corporation GIS Specialist
Matt Love Ocean Conservancy Conservation Biologist-GIS Specialist
Lisa Lubeley, GISP Dudek Engineering GIS Manager
Joanna Malaczynski Portland Civil Law, LLP Attorney, GIS Analyst
Jason Mann, GISP Edan Engineering Corp. Senior Software Analyst
Jonathan Mark City of Vancouver Senior Manager, GIS and CADD Services
Robert Marmion Montgomery County, NJ GIS Director and Director of Community
Development (retired)
Chester J. Mazur Lambda Consulting President
Diana L. McCarthy City of Fullerton GIS Specialist
7
Kim McDonough, GISP Tennessee Department of GIS Coordinator
Transportation
Lance McKee OGC - Open Geospatial Senior Staff Writer
Consortium
Russell Mercer Get Spatial Consulting President
Alan M. Mikuni, PE, CP Towill, Inc. Senior Program Director
Craig Miller, M.D. Living Earth GIS GIS Analyst
Jeff Milliken U.S.D.I. Bureau of Reclamation GIS / Remote Sensing Scientist
Anne Millington, DVM, GISP California Dept. of Public Health Enterprise GIS Coordinator
Nathaniel Mirin Michael Baker Corporation GIS Associate
Doug Miskowiak University of Wisconsin - GIS Education Specialist
Stevens Point
Bill Moore Town of Cary Planning GIS Applications Manager
Department
Sara Morrison CA Dept. of Fish and Game Research Analyst-GIS
Rebecca A. Morton Towill, Inc. Senior Program Director
David Murray City of Westminster, CO GIS Coordinator
Joel Myhre Nordic Geospatial Consulting Principal Consultant
Douglas Nebert Global Spatial Data Senior Advisor for Geospatial Technology
Infrastructure Association
Carl Nelson City of Los Angeles GIS Technician
David Nicholls UNESCO Western Port Research Committee Member
Biosphere Reserve
Bernard J. Niemann University of Wisconsin - Professor Emeritus
Madison, Department of
Urban & Regional Planning
Sue Niemann NorthernView Enterprises, LLC President
8
Robert Norheim University of Washington, GIS Analyst
College of the Environment
Heather Nunn ENVIRON International Corp. GIS Analyst
Becky O'Malley Berkeley Daily Planet Editor
Harlan J. Onsrud, Ph.D University of Maine - School of Professor
Computing and Information
Science
Jeff Onsted Florida International University, Assistant Professor of Geography
Depts of Earth & Environment
Carol Ostergren USGS National Geospatial Geographer
Program
Amye Rita Osti 34 North CEO
Craig Parada GIS Technical Services President
Scott Parker City of Portland, OR, Metro GIS Volunteer
Pat Parsons CA Department of Water GIS Research Analyst II (retired)
Resources
Anne Payne Wake County, NC, Geographic GIS Database Administrator
Information Services
Lorri Peltz-Lewis U.S.Forest Service GIS Coordinator
Hilary Perkins, AICP, GISP City of Maryland Heights, MO Planner, GIS Professional
Charlotte Peters CA Dept. of Fish and Game Research Analyst - GIS
Nanette Pratini Albert A. Webb Associates GIS Specialist
Curtis Pulford Wisconsin Department of Geographic Information Officer
Administration
Daniel S. Putler no affiliation GIS Professional
Brian B. Quinn, Ph.D., GISP Marin County Community GIS Professional
Development Agency
John Radke, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley Professor, City and Regional Planning
9
Lillian Remer, MA, GISP Pacific Institute for Research & Associate Research Scientist
Evaluation
Amanda Recinos GreenInfo Network Associate Director
Alan Rich, GISP City of Milpitas GIS Manager
John Ridener University of California - GIS Specialist/Map Cataloger
Berkeley
Mark Robinson CenterPoint Energy Gas GIS Analyst II
Transmission, LLC
Alex Rocco City of Carson GIS Administrator
Martin Roche, CEcD, GISP GeoPlanning Services CEO
Peter Roffers, GISP CA Dept of Conservation, Engineering Geologist/GIS Analyst
California Geological Survey
Jovian Sackett Southern Environmental Law GIS Analyst
Center
Mark Salling, PhD, GISP Cleveland State University, Director Northern Ohio Data &
Information Service
Kevin Sato Utah Geographic Information Vice Chair
Council
Chris Schaefer, GISP no affiliation Independent Consultant
Christian Schumann-Curtis Blue Sky GIS, Inc. President
Tom Schweich Alameda Community Emergency Board Member and GIS Analyst
Response Team
Tony Seebach City of San Jose Information Systems Analyst for Databases and
GIS (retired)
Nadeem Shaukat PG & E Project Manager
Allison Shaw The Nature Conservancy in GIS & Conservation Data Manager
Wisconsin
10
Bill Shook Stewart Geo Technologies President
Burt Ray Simpson Address Access LLC Advocate for Sound Addressing Standards and
Practices
Bern Smith Bay Area Ridge Trail Council South Bay Trail Director
Victoria Smith, GISP CO Division of Emergency Mitigation Technical Specialist
Management
Jim Sparks Indiana Office of Technology Indiana Geographic Information Officer
Marvin Sperlin AeroComputers, Inc. GIS Manager
Jon Sperling U.S. HUD, Office of Policy Senior Researcher, Geographic Information &
Development & Research Analysis
Robert Spiva California CAD Solutions Vice President
Steven Steinberg, Ph.D. Humboldt State University Professor, Geospatial Sciences
Allie Stoddard SCS Engineers Senior Project Administrator
Jaime Stoltenberg Univ. of Wisconsin - Madison Map and Geospatial Data Librarian
Matthew Stone PlaceLogic, Inc. Geospatial Technical Coordinator
Jim Stout IMAGIS - Indianapolis Mapping Program Manager
and Geographic Infrastructure
System
Jennifer Strahan GreenInfo Network Interactive Solutions Manager
Rudy Stricklan, RLS, GISP Mapping Automation, LLC Principal Consultant
Geney Terry, GISP, MGIS Geospatial Information Solutions Principal
LLC
Jason Thomas CenturyLink Director of Strategic Analytics
Neil Thomas Resource Data, Inc President
Sherry Toutges, PLS CalTrans Transportation Surveyor
Katarzyna Trzopek Johns Hopkins University Graduate Student, Environmental Science & Policy
Mary Tusi, GISP Land Systems Group President
11
Cindy Tufts University of New Hampshire, Program Coordinator
NERRS Science
Collaborative
Diana Umpierre, GISP South Florida Water Senior Geographer
Management District
Karen Underhill Orange County Water District GIS/Database Manager
Samuel Valdez City & County of San Francisco Enterprise GIS Engineer
Peter Van Demark Caliper Corporation Director of GIS Products and Training
Paul Veisze CA State Parks Department Geographic Information Officer
Fredrick E. Vogler County of Marin GIS Manager
Reid Watkins City of Anaheim Public Utilities Asst. Business Information Systems Manager
Department
Lynda Wayne GeoMaxim Principal
Rixanne Wehren GeoGraphics / Coast GIS Lab Cartographer
Ed Wells Washington Metro Area Transit GIS Manager
Authority
Bruce Westcott Bspatial Consulting Geospatial Information Consultant
Jessica White Stanford University GIS Analyst
Stephen Whitaker no affiliation GIS Professional
Will Wilson, PLS Caltrans Survey Data Center Transportation Surveyor
Gerald R. Woergoetter Alameda County Public Works Land Surveyor
Association
Craig Wolff Lobo Geo, LLC CEO
Kathy Zeller UMASS Anherst PhD student
Chris Zontine San Jose State University Geography Graduate Student
12
APPENDIX B - Letter from Raymond L. Mathe, Orange County Surveyor
13
14
APPENDIX C - Letter from Jack Dangermond, ESRI President
15
APPENDIX D.1 - Resolution of Orange County Supervisors, 12-13-11
16
APPENDIX D.2 - Resolution of Orange County Supervisors, 12-13-11
17
APPENDIX D.3 - Resolution of Orange County Supervisors, 12-13-11
18
APPENDIX D.4 - Resolution of Orange County Supervisors, 12-13-11
19
APPENDIX E - Email between Steve Golden, City of Morgan Hill, and Santa Clara County
From: Vaidya, Durga [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, December 03, 2010 4:02 PM To: Steve Golden Cc: Colley, Robert; Robert Nakamae Subject: RE: request for information form
Mr. Golden
The County has received your request for GIS data records. The County has a record, the latest record is for the 3rd Quarter 2009 in file geo- database format for the listed items except for the Annotation Layers.
Please make the change in your request form and resubmit for it to be processed.
Thanks and regards,
Durga Vaidya Santa Clara County
20
APPENDIX F - Email between Jeff Hobbs, San Jose Water Company, and Santa Clara County
From: Colley, Robert [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2010 15:16 PM To: Jeff Hobbs Cc: Robert Nakamae; Chou, Michelle Subject: RE: Parcel Layer Request
Mr. Hobbs,
The County has received your request for GIS data records and will try to help you identify the records you are looking for. Specifically you requested the following Graphical GIS Data records:
1> Closed land parcel polygons, each tagged with Assessor's Parcel 1> Number (APN) 2> Closed air parcel polygons, each tagged with Assessor's Parcel Number 2> (APN 3> Right of way line work data 4> Street centerline and Street Centerline Attribute Data 5> Land and/Air Parcel Attribute Data that can be joined to the parcel 5> polygons. Included in the attributes should be APN and situs address. 6> Data Dictionary describing the attributes of each database column Any domain tables necessary to decode values that may be stored in the GIS database 7> GIS metadata including The basemap's projection, datum, and state 7> plane coordinate system, date of data capture, and locational accuracy (or error tolerance)and general description of each table delivered
I will try to address each of your request below: 1 and 2> The County has parcel data records for the entire County of Santa Clara including both land and air parcels, the latest record is for the 3rd Quarter 2009. 3> The County has a Boundary ROW record, the latest record is for the 3rd Quarter 2009. 4> The County has a Street Centerline record, the latest record is for the 3rd Quarter 2009. 5> The parcel attribute data is maintained by the Office of the Assessor. If you would like information related to the Assessor's roll data, including the parcel SITUS address, the County Assessor handles those requests because the availability of those records is in accord with the provisions of the Revenue and Taxation Code, commencing with section 401 and are subject to a fee schedule. I've attached the order form which you can fill out and return to Michelle Chou, Information Systems Division, Assessor's Office. Please contact questions, Michelle by e-mail, [email protected], or telephone (408) 299-6501. 6> The County has a Data Dictionary record.
21
7> The GIS metadata or table descriptions that are available is part of the individual records, to the best of my knowledge there are no separate records for these items.
Please revise your request to those records that are available. The records for items 1 through 6 will fit on one CD, therefore the cost of providing a copy of the records to you is $3.10 plus $1.39 for USPS First Class postage for a total of $4.49. If you have a UPS or FedEx Account and would like the County to use one of these shipping methods then please send $3.10 plus the shipping account number to which to charge the shipping cost.
Please enclose a check or money order for the amount stated above based on your preferred shipping method, payable to "County of Santa Clara - ISD", with a copy of the revised form. Please note that there is a return check charge of $20 or actual cost, whichever is greater, plus a $50.00 fee [Co. Ord. A14-30; Ord. NS-300.323].
Mail the form and payment to:
Office of County Counsel Public Records Request - GIS Data 70 Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor San Jose, CA 95110-1770
Once the check has cleared the bank the County will then send you a copy of the record.
At this time we do not have the ability to take payment in the form of a credit card.
Thanks and regards, Robert Colley
GIS Manager County of Santa Clara 408-918-7037
22
APPENDIX G - Email between Lorri Peltz-Lewis, U.S. Forest Service, and Bruce Joffe
From: Lorri Peltz-Lewis
Bruce,
[Text Omitted]
Thank-you for all of your great efforts on this. As we approach what could be a catastrophic fire season having data like this available for us to plan for extreme fire behavior is critical to the decision making during all phases of our response - planning, suppression, response, and restoration. The horrific images of homes burning and being wiped out by debris flows depend on our knowledge of what is on the ground.
Thanks again! Keep up the good work! Lorri
23