There’s an explanation below, but let me give it a try and I think you’ll understand why it’s such a big deal to counties. Be forewarned: my explanation is simplistic.

Farmers and ranchers get a break on property taxes in exchange for a 10-year (in Tuolumne County) commitment to keep their land in productive agriculture or open space. Counties rely on state subvention or subsidy dollars to cover the cost of providing those tax breaks. Unlike Tuolumne County (our subvention is approx. $117,000 a year), in the recent past some counties in the Central Valley have received over a million dollars a year from the state. State subvention dollars go into county general funds to provide public services (police, fire, roads, etc.). No subvention, revenues decrease. Revenues decrease, so must services.

Here’s a good case for saving the Williamson Act as made by the Save the Williamson Act: a Coalition Committed to Protecting the California Land Conservation Act posted on the California Association of Resource Conservation District’s (www.carcd.org) website.

*****

The Williamson Act is the single most-effective agricultural land preservation program in California, and it’s under attack. The Governor suspended subvention payments to local governments in the 2009-10 state budget and is threatening to do so again. Many of the 54 counties that participate in the program will not be able to continue the program without help from the state.

Given the Williamson Act’s statewide benefits to the economy, agriculture and the environment, it is our hope that state leaders will demonstrate their commitment to the program by reinvesting in its long-term success through the restoration of $38 million to the Williamson Act’s subvention program.

Background

Since its adoption 45 years ago, the California Land Conservation Act, commonly known as the Williamson Act, has grown into the state’s most important farmland protection program. The program protects 16.5 million acres of farmland throughout the state by offering property tax relief in return for rolling contracts to keep land in commercial agricultural production for 10 or 20 years.

Enacted in 1971, the Williamson Act subvention program sets forth a state reimbursement formula for allocating payments to local governments based on acreage enrolled in the program. This financial support from the state has provided a tangible incentive for local governments to stay in the program and initiate more contracts by partially replacing property tax revenues lost on enrolled land.

WHAT’S AT RISK?

Farm and Ranchland Conservation

In the most recent poll of landowners who participate in the Williamson Act program, one-in-three landowners said they would be unable to continue farming or ranching without the benefits of the program. It is estimated that the program saves property owners 20-75 percent in property taxes. Without the Williamson Act, large-scale farmland conversions will no doubt reduce the production of California commodities and this in turn will affect local and even international food markets. California is the dominant producer of many specialty crops that provide diversity in our diets. With the loss of production, prices will rise for all consumers, not just those in California.

Environmental and Land Use Benefits

Roughly 16 million of the state’s 29 million acres of farm and ranchland are currently protected by the Williamson Act. In addition to preserving our state’s agriculture, lands under Williamson Act contract help contribute to meeting California’s AB 32 and SB 375 goals through carbon sequestration and effective land-use planning. Counties rely on the program to implement general plan conservation programs which address the growth of urban areas, the expansion of public infrastructure and the conservation of important agriculture and open space resources. The program also helps to maintain open space and critical habitat for many of California’s most sensitive species.

Economy and Jobs

California farmers and ranchers are an essential part of our state’s economy. Agricultural production is large, dynamic, and closely linked to many other industries; for example, the production of farm inputs, the processing of food and beverages, the textile industry, transportation and financial services. Considering the economic multiplier effects, California farm and closely related processing industries employ 7.3 percent of the state’s private sector labor force and account for 5.6 percent of the state labor income. Also, for every dollar of value added in labor income, property income and indirect business taxes, farming and agricultural related industries generate an additional $1.27 in the state economy. For every 100 jobs in agriculture, including the food industry, there are 94 additional jobs created throughout the state. Farm exports, so vital to our nation’s balance of trade, constituted 40 percent of the total export value of $10 billion through the Port of Oakland in 2008 and contributed to 22 percent of the Port’s annual revenue of $135 million.

Public Services

The subvention program assists counties in dealing with numerous other responsibilities and public services. The loss of one of the last sources of discretionary revenues for the counties equates to further erosion of county services including: public safety, land use, elections, road maintenance and various health and human services.

###

Sonora, Calif., (May 26, 2010)…The Forest Service today announced that 28 Stanislaus National Forest campgrounds and picnic areas will be open to accommodate visitors and campers for this Memorial Day weekend. Due to the heavy snow pack at higher elevations this year, a number of campgrounds will open later as the snow melts. All of the Forest’s 52 developed campgrounds, offering 1,391 campsites, are scheduled to be open and available by mid-summer this year.

For more info, visit the USFS website.

Sonora, Calif., (November 16, 2009)… The Forest Service today announced dates, times, and locations for five public meetings that will provide information on the upcoming Stanislaus National Forest (NF) Motorized Travel Management (MTM) Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision. The release of the decision and legal notice is expected within the next three weeks.

Current MTM information is available on the Forest website at:

http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv

The meetings are scheduled as follows:

• 3, 2009, 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Sonora Best Western, Oak Glenn room, located at 19551 Hess Road, in Sonora.
• December 5, 2009, 3:00 to 6:30 p.m. at the Harvest Hall located at 3800 Cornucopia Way, in Modesto.
• December 9, 2009, a hosted Webinar from 7:00 to 8.30 p.m., check the Stanislaus NF website for additional information http//:www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv (before December 1, 2009).
• January 6, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.
• January 7, 2010, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. (to be announced) in Groveland or Arnold.

Interested individuals and groups are invited to attend one of the above meeting dates, times and locations. For more information see www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv, or call Sue Warren at (209) 532-3671, extension 321.

###

If you do comment, make sure you are familiar with the alternatives and address the issues that concern you. It’s about much more than off-road vehicles. It’s about how you are allowed to access and use it: how far off a road you can drive (proposed to be one car length), how you can get to dispersed campsites (if the road is closed, access will have to be by non-motorized means), what time of year you can drive on the roads, etc. If you’d like a copy of the  Board’s comments that was approved (4/1, Liz Bass opposing) and submitted last week, please email me at info.

Here are a few observations:

• It is important to understand that the system is being evaluated from the standpoint of presently authorized roads, not all existing roads. That makes a lot of difference.
• There are five proposed alternatives, each with drawbacks and advantages. The best choice may be a combination of several alternatives.
• Alternative 2 has been called the “no action” alternative. However, that doesn’t mean that the status quo would be left intact, but that every road that is not presently authorized would be closed: many, many miles fall into that category.
• Each alternative notes that a certain number of miles is proposed to be added and a certain number of roads/miles, closed. The roads added number means added to the official authorized system, not new miles of roads added, and roads/miles closed means existing roads, blocked and off-limits forever or until NEPA analyses are done, whichever comes first.
• There are obviously some roads that users created that should be closed because of their condition and the harm their use causes to sensitive areas. But there are many that are proposed to be closed because the USFS doesn’t have the budget to maintain them.

So again, please invest the time to provide informed and meaningful comments.

Here’s the press release from the Stanislaus National Forest: 

Motorized Travel Management Comment Period Extended

Sonora, Calif., (May 1, 2009)…The Forest Service today announced that the sixty day public comment period on the Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been extended for an additional 15 days. Comments on the DEIS are now due by Wednesday, May 20, 2009.

Since the March 6 beginning of the DEIS 60-day public review and comment period the Forest has conducted a total of six public meetings, a series of four open house workshops, and an internet “webinar” teleconference. Copies of the DEIS and newly published Errata are available at all Stanislaus National Forest offices.

The Stanislaus National Forest Motorized Travel Management project is part of a national effort to define transportation systems on every National Forest. The goal is to develop a sustainable system of routes that provide an array of opportunities for access and recreation on National Forest lands, as well as protection of various resources by curtailing motorized cross country travel.

Comments are invited on the DEIS, and to be considered, and must be received by the Stanislaus NF no later than Wednesday, May 20 2009.

While comments may be submitted anytime during the analysis process, only those individuals and organizations who provide comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal the subsequent decision under 36 CFR 215.

Comments may be submitted to Stanislaus National Forest; Attn: Motorized Travel DEIS; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370. Electronic comments may be submitted to comments-pacificsouthwest-stanislaus with Subject: Motorized Travel DEIS. Comments may be submitted by FAX (209) 533-1890; or, by hand-delivery to the address shown above, during normal business hours (Monday-Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.). Oral comments may be provided by calling (209) 532-3671 ext. 350.

The project web page [http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv] includes the latest project updates, schedules for public meetings, and other information. To request additional information regarding this project, contact Sue Warren, Team Leader; Stanislaus National Forest; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370; or, e-mail swarren (to ensure a timely response, it is important to include “Information Request” in the subject line).

Compact Discs containing the DEIS documents, resource reports, supporting documents and maps are available by request. The DEIS is also available for review at the Forest Supervisor’s Office; 19777 Greenley Road; Sonora, CA 95370; or, online at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv.

A Final Environmental Impact Statement and decision by Forest Supervisor Susan Skalski are expected this summer, with a Motor Vehicle Use Map scheduled for release by the end of 2009. Following the designation of specific motorized routes, motor vehicle use off designated roads and trails would be prohibited, unless under special use permit.

Board of Supervisors’ Comment Letter Approved May 28, 2009

The DEIS presents a proposed (favored) action, a no action alternative and 3 additional action alternatives and describes the environmental impacts of each. The alternatives seek to:

1. prohibit motor vehicle travel off designated National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads and trails by the public except as allowed by permit or other authorization (excluding snowmobile use);

2. add 157.39 miles of existing unauthorized routes to the NFTS of trails currently open to the public for motor vehicle use; and,

3. make vehicle class changes to the existing NFTS on 623.28 miles of roads. The proposed action replaces all existing seasonal closures with season of use restrictions based on elevation and wet weather closures on native surfaced routes.

For more info and details on how to formally comment, see http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/stanislaus/projects/ohv or contact Sue Warren at (209) 532-3671. The Board of Supervisors will hear a briefing on the EIS in mid-April and will comment formally, as well. A Final Environmental Impact Statement and decision are expected later this year.

Kennedy Meadows decision expected in late April. There’s little to report on the Stewardship Council’s (SC) evaluation of USFS’ and local partners’ (RCD, county, Mother Lode Land Trust) proposals to own, manage, and protect Kennedy Meadows. The SC’s evaluation team will be here in the next few weeks to ask questions about both proposals. Stay tuned – a recommendation for who should own/manage and oversee the conservation easement is expected at the April meeting of the Stewardship Council in Redding.

District Office Hours in April

Tuolumne: Weds., April 1, 10:00 – 11:30 am, Tuolumne Memorial Museum on Carter Street

Twain Harte: Weds., April 8, 10-11:30 am, Twain Harte Community Service District office on Twain Harte Drive across from the Eproson House; and

Mi-Wuk Village: Fri., April 24, 1-2:30 pm, Mi-Wuk Village Library next to the Post Office (office hours will not be held in MWV on Apr. 17th due to scheduling conflict).

We teach our kids to share early-on based on the principle that sharing is good for them and getting their way all the time isn’t good for them or for others. If we don’t teach these important lessons of restraint and self-sacrifice, they become accustomed to prevailing, don’t play well with others, and get extremely cranky when anything threatens their perceived entitlement. No one likes being around a two-year old in an adult’s body. So we teach our children that selfishness is an unworthy and unacceptable character trait.

But somewhere along the way, we justify that in adulthood it’s a badge of honor to go for and get what we want – the whole pie. We adopt a mind-set in many areas of life that the goal is to win at any cost and if we don’t, a good secondary goal is to make the other side pay in spades. In the process, we totally disregard that often when we get what we want, others’ interests are damaged or denied.

When we operate from a get-what-we-want-at-any-cost, take all the marbles frame of reference, we don’t stop to consider alternatives that might meet multiple needs. We see everything as do or die and in land use decisions, often end up in court appealing unfavorable outcomes or defending our victories to a higher authority.

In the case of Mountain Springs, developer Bill Barrett and his partners did a wise thing. They pulled back from getting all of what they wanted – a larger development – to ask Voters Choice and others opposed to Mountain Springs if there was a way to satisfy their needs and still build a project. Barrett offered to reduce the developers’ share of the pie to increase the share of others.

I don’t know who was more surprised: Voters Choice, the lawyers, the Board and county staff, or the community. Ultimately, developers and opponents arrived at something they did support and together asked the Board of Supervisors to approve. And that’s a very good thing.

Mountain Springs has been a divisive project for years. When I ran for office, many wanted to know how I would vote – pro or con. Because the Board of Supervisors has long been regarded as the chief pie-divider, both sides wanted assurance that I would vote for them to have full possession of the pie.

To the surprise of both sides, I was an advocate for sharing the pie, for looking for ways to make it bigger (exploring other options), and for making sure that both sides got what they needed, if not what they wanted. I was and am for demonstrating to our children that there is honor in consensus and working to meet mutiple needs and goals.

Not only did the agreement cause each side to take into account the needs of the other side, but it also allowed the community to begin to move past conflict to heal.  It showed our children that we can walk the talk by sharing, playing well together, and looking out for mutual interests.

The Rolling Stones were right on this much: you can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you do get what you need.

Kudos to Bill Barrett, his partners, and to Voters Choice and their allies for getting what they need and for allowing others to do the same. Well done.

Last month Teri rode to Bear Lake with a group of interested citizens and Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment’s (TuCARE) Stacey Dodge to visit the check dam there and learn more about the protracted and ongoing conflict over maintaining check dams in the Emigrant Wilderness. Union Democrat reporter James Damschroeder was along for the ride. Read his account here: Final push made at saving check dams.

This glorious lake exists because of the rocks in the foreground (and the rocks and mortar underneath them), placed there years before the Emigrant Wilderness Area was designated by Congress. This glorious lake predates the check dam there – by thousands of years, according to some – and the depth in the middle is between 30-40′. The check dam raised Bear Lake’s level by about 10′. The check dam was placed and Bear Lake’s level raised before the Emigrant Wilderness was designated by Congress. A series of local and regional USFS decisions ultimately led to a negotiated agreement between the USFS and proponents and opponents of the check dams that allowed for the natural disintegration of some Emigrant Wilderness check dams and maintenance of others determined to be critical habitat and important recreation lakes. [Bear Lake is a relatively short ride in from Aspen Meadows and is often visited so folks can see what the fuss is all about. Bear Lake's was not one of the check dams slated to be maintained in the agreement.]

Unfortunately, Wilderness advocates that did not participate in the negotiated agreement and who are devoted to sequestering wilderness areas from any and all human management activities successfully sued to prohibit the USFS from maintaining any of the check dams.

When the check dam above disintegrates as was mandated by the recent federal court order and as is already happening, Bear Lake will become Bear Meadow. The Lake which provides summer-long downstream riparian habitat will be negatively impacted and this beautiful high country lake will be gone forever. continue to exist, although its level will drop. Ultimately, likely over hundreds of years, Bear Lake will eventually fill with sediment from natural geomorphological processes and become a meadow: with or without the check dam.

There is evidence on the rocks at several Emigrant check dams that disintegration is being “helped along” and accelerated with crowbars or similar prying implements.

Despite the fact that Teri hadn’t ridden in way too long and was a bit sore from the previous day’s Range Ride (see below), she wouldn’t have missed it for the world! Aspen Meadows Pack Station provided TuCare with good riding horses and not only did she learn a lot, but it was a glorious day horseback in the Wilderness. Thanks, Stacey and TuCare!

This week the Board sat down to ask questions, deliberate, and suggest Mountain Springs’ approval should be conditioned with improved mitigation measures or denied. To decide on the project (likely in August), ultimately the Board will have to make a finding that the public benefits aren’t or are sufficient to justify “significant and unvoidable” impacts including ag land conversion, air quality, traffic, noise, and growth.

The Union Democrat and MyMotherLode.com covered the hearing and in case the reports didn’t tell you enough and you didn’t listen to the live audio, I’d like to share with you what I proposed to improve mitigation for Mountain Springs’ proposed conversion of ag land that could allow us to pursue new opportunities for agriculture in Tuolumne County.

As I considered approving Mountain Springs, a number of the arguments for it and against it made sense. I was fairly certain based on public comments over the last year that three supervisors are supportive of Mountain Springs. Since it appears to be headed for approval, I see an opportunity to advance agriculture and improve the mitigation.

In my mind, in order to approve Mountain Springs there absolutely have to be strong benefits to the public and to agriculture. There are benefits to the public from Mountain Springs, although the degrees of benefit are vigorously debated. Public benefits include jobs, housing, positive economic contributions, tax revenues, and more. Achieving benefits to agriculture from the development of Mountain Springs and the loss of that ag land takes a bit of imagination and vision.

Benefits to ag could include adding value to existing ag and creating new opportunities for diversified practices, providing incentives to farmers and ranchers to stay in business and maintain agricultural landscapes and traditions, increasing the perceived value of agriculture in the community and our youth via programs and education, supporting the developing an ag tourism industry, protecting existing ag land and uses, setting a precedent for mitigation that protects the land and promotes ag, and so on.

To that end, here are the conditions I requested the developers include as part of the approval of Mountain Springs:

1. Create a Tuolumne County Lands Conservation Fund to support programs to protect agricultural land and promote and enhance the agriculture industry in the County. The fund may be used by the County to provide programs for enhancing agricultural operations in the County, purchase agricultural land in fee title or agricultural easements, or other purposes related to the protection or promotion of the agricultural industry in Tuolumne County as determined by the Board of Supervisors.

2. Mountain Springs will pay mitigation for all ag lands converted to residential & commercial (427.4 acres), recreation (32 acres), and open space (285 acres) on a ratio of 1:1, based on $2,000/acre. (The golf course parcel is to be excluded from mitigation since it was taken out of agriculture a long time ago.)

3. Mitigation funds will be paid to Tuolumne County Lands Conservation Fund deposited with Sonora Area Foundation or in trust with the County of Tuolumne. The administrator of the Tuolumne County Lands Conservation Fund will be established by the County, as approved by the Board of Supervisors at the time the fund is established.

4. Mountain Springs will create an ag easement on the 2-40 acre parcels (80-acres) buffer on southwest end of project and provide water (treated or otherwise) to be used for irrigation in the buffer area. Both parcels will be put out for bid to be leased or sold with an ag easement. The land must be maintained in viable, productive agriculture and could be advised by a committee whose members could include a representative from Tuolumne County Farm Bureau, the TC Ag Commissioner, TC Cooperative Extension advisor, TC Resource Conservation District, Farms of Tuolumne County, and Master Gardeners.

5. Mountain Springs will make every attempt to feature locally grown ag commodities in the hotel and restaurant and provide space and water where access to treated water exists adjacent to open space or park(s) for community garden areas.

6. Mountain Springs will maintain existing fences with neighboring ag parcels, ranchers will not be held responsible for damages such as could result due to livestock entering the community as a result of vandalism to fences, will assume joint responsibility with property owners on fences where parcels not zoned ag or once ag parcels are split and developed, the 80 acre buffer area will be fenced off from adjacent property owners with non-climb or similar fencing that will not permit domestic pets or humans to access adjacent ag property.

7. Mountain Springs will post “No Trespassing – Private Property” warning signs on existing MS boundary fences near open space/trails with adjacent agricultural properties

And finally, having absolutely nothing to do with agriculture but everything to do with benefiting the community and the County, Mountain Springs community will be “broadband friendly” – providing infrastructure for broadband, fire fuels management plans in densely vegetated areas will be updated on a regular basis and are required to be implemented by the Homeowners Association, and conditions/mitigation responsibilities will transfer with parcels.

****************************************************************

Over the next few weeks, staff will work with the developers to iron out the specifics of these conditions and they will return to the Board – likely on August 5th – for final consideration.

Not part of the Mountain Springs decision, but to be shaped through a subsequent stakeholder process and considered for adoption by the Board at a later date are a mitigation ordinance to address future conversion of ag land and possible programs to benefit ag.

Tuolumne County Ag Commissioner Vicki Helmar says some common strategies to increase ag production values include:

- diversification of the types of crops,
- converting from lower valued crops to higher value fruit and nut crops,
- specialty and value-added crops like winegrapes,
- olives for oil,
- blueberries for dehydration,
- lavender and other botanicals used for scents,
- implementation of ‘Locally Grown’ programs, and
- organic production.

Three counties that have converted acreage from lower value crops to higher valued fruit and nut crops have increased values by 53% in a 10 year period. Calaveras County’s 1998 value was $1,730,000 and in 2007 the value was $3,048,200. Placer County’s 1998 value was $2,915,800 and in 2007 its value was $7,470,700. Yolo County’s 1998 value was $68,347,000 and in 2007 the value was $105,223,700.

Vicki concludes, “a combination of strategies can provide increased value of ag commodities. Mitigation of the loss of ag land from Mountain Springs through the funding and implementation of any program(s) that support these strategies could be a real benefit to Tuolumne County.”

An industry with great potential in Tuolumne County is ag toursim. A White Paper prepared in 2007 by a workgroup from the University of California’s Cooperative Extension states,

“A rapidly growing population and corresponding economic pressures have forced many farmers and ranchers to seek other opportunities for income enhancement within their current operation. Agriculture and nature tourism is a logical way to increase profitability and opportunity, create a more sustainable community while maintaining a high quality of life, and conserve natural resources in California.

This type of tourism is the fastest growing segment of economic development initiatives nationally and internationally. Agriculture tourism enterprises include things such as farm tours, farm stands, u-pick farms, hunting clubs, vineyard weddings, old-fashioned cattle brandings, trail rides, and farm stays. Nature tourism entails a commercial operation working toward its visitor’s enjoyment, understanding, and appreciation of natural areas while conserving the local ecological, social, and cultural values. Both of these types of rural tourism incorporate aspects of cultural, historical, place based experiences that are authentic and homegrown.”

Tuolumne County could support the development of various new ag opportunities in a number of ways. A few of them that I mentioned in the Board meeting are:

• facilitate a stakeholder-driven development of vision and implementation plan for the local ag industry,
• support development and promotion of existing (and new) locally grown foods,
• develop low or no interest short-term loan program to ranchers/farmers to develop ag tourism infrastructure (picnic areas, etc.),
• examine existing land use policies and zoning to determine which need to be changed to benefit and encourage existing and new ag,
• identify suitable areas for intensive ag expansion by overlaying NRCS soils survey data with available ag and recycled TUD water availability to identify land use changes to encourage small organic or conventional irrigated ag farms for locally grown food and ag tourism,
• treat provision of rural landscapes as a crop: create an open space/view shed lease program for ranchers who aren’t interested in conservation easements that would provide a pre-established monthly payment over a pre-determined time period for keeping ag land in ag,
• conservation easements, if demand develops,
• contribute to and strengthen noxious weed eradication program countywide,
• encourage agriculturally healthy rangelands and forests through coordinated efforts with state and federal government agencies,
• collaborate and assist existing agricultural education programs (i.e. Pizza Farm, high school ag programs, 4-H, Ag in the Classroom, Farms of Tuolumne County, TuCARE, etc.) to educate community and children on value of agriculture
• conduct outreach for planning, programs, education, and promote existing and new markets and opportunities for ag in Tuolumne County

Many opportunities exist to achieve a vibrant and growing ag industry, it just takes imagination, courage, hard work, and money.

I grew up during the demise of the sheep industry in Mendocino County. It looked something like what we see here now. In small increments, we are witnessing the passing away of the Tuolumne County we treasure. Unless and until we figure out how to keep what we love while we are reinventing agriculture to expand its scope, it will be lost parcel by parcel and family by family.

My favorite quote from Gone With the Wind is poignantly relevant. Ashley Wilkes represented the Southern culture and way of life. He realized that with the Civil War, the South he loved was passing away before his eyes. Scarlett O’Hara, very much in the present and desperate for a solution to starvation and misery asked him,

“Oh, Ashley, What’s to become of us all?”

He responded looking at things from a greater perspective.

“I wonder not only what will become of us at Tara but what will become of everybody in the South… In the end what will happen will be what has happened whenever a civilization breaks up. The people who have brains and courage come through and the ones who haven’t are winnowed out.”

Tuolumne County’s agriculture and those who love it can act decisively and seize opportunities when they present themselves. The proposed ag land mitigation from Mountain Springs can benefit not only the public, but also agriculture… if we act with brains and courage.

Not so, according to legal research conducted by Tuolumne County’s Deputy County Counsel Carlyn Drivdahl.

A group of citizens in Tuolumne has been working hard to improve their town over the last few years. Once a thriving community, Tuolumne fell on hard times after the closing of the West Side mill and most residents are anxious to see their community brought back to life while it retains the special and unique qualities they cherish.

They envision a revitalized downtown that will attract new businesses to help them rebuild. They are concerned about a handful of buildings (all over 50 years old) that would be difficult (and expensive) to rehabilitate, that contribute to the appearance of blight in their community, and that are safety hazards due to their rundown condition.

Tuolumne County is blessed with significant historic resources and the Board of Supervisors has provided for their potential preservation through its Cultural Resources Ordinance. If a building was built before 1958, this ordinance mandates that it can’t be torn down without a permit issued by the county, and then only after review by the three-member Demolition Review Committee (all members of the Historic Preservation Review Commission).

The ordinance has no provision to prohibit a building’s demolition, but the Committee can require certain conditions in exchange for a permit to demolish.

When the Committee considered and then approved the application for a demolition permit, they required some conditions of the property owners – among them photo documentation of Speaker’s Garage, a plan to be drawn up of its footprint, ongoing maintenance of the lot so it isn’t an eyesore, and others.

At least one condition was unacceptable to the property owner – a requirement to conduct a highly technical survey to National Park Service Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) standards. This condition was in addition to photo and other documentation and would have cost $5,000- $10,000, depending on the level of documentation required.

Further, the property owners felt several of the conditions were ambiguous and they were concerned about possible onerous interpretations so they appealed the Committee’s conditions to the Board of Supervisors.

At the initial appeal hearing, supervisors did not take action, instead telling both parties to sit down together, clarify ambiguous conditions, and come to agreement on new reasonable conditions (minus the HABS survey). The Board did not want to over-rule the Committee – we wanted the Committee to be reasonable and we wanted both parties to agree.

When the appeal came back to the Board several weeks later, we were told that the property owners and the Committee had agreed upon reasonable terms and the HABS survey had been eliminated from the conditions. But there was just one small problem…

Between the time of agreement and our Board meeting, the Fifth District Court of Appeal held in Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno that Fresno had not reviewed a demolition permit properly in light of California Environmental Quality Act’s (CEQA) requirements to make a finding of the building’s historic significance.

The Court opined the demolition should have been evaluated under one of three types of historical resources:

• Mandatory: A lead agency must find a resource is a significant historical resource if it has been listed on or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. The court explained that it is only an official determination by the State Historical Resources Commission that triggers this mandatory determination. Speaker’s Garage is neither listed on, nor eligible for listing.

• Presumptive: A lead agency must presume a resource is a significant historical resource if it has been listed on a local register or included in a local survey that meets specified criteria, unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates otherwise. Several experts testified that Speaker’s Garage qualified under this category, however, County Counsel’s research determined that the local survey had to have been conducted or updated within the last five years. The Tuolumne survey was conducted over five years ago and had not been updated so Counsel advised that Speaker’s Garage did not fall under this category.

• Discretionary: A lead agency may determine that a resource is a significant historical resource if it does not fit within the mandatory or presumptive categories, as long as the determination is supported by substantial evidence in the record. When such a determination is made the criteria to be applied include the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.

The discussion turned to whether Speaker’s Garage is historically significant to qualify as a discretionary historical resource. In order to be historically significant, the Board would need to make a finding that:

1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; or

2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or National history; or

3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or

4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.

A number of Tuolumne residents testified that Speaker’s Garage was an important part of their lives growing up, but that it no longer resembles the building they knew and they wanted it torn down.

But now I saw a problem. I couldn’t get past #2. I asked the daughter of the man who ran Speaker’s Garage for years if she thought it applied – she didn’t think it did. She asked the Board to go ahead and uphold the appeal… let the building be torn down.

I felt the right thing to do for the building, property owners, and the community was to uphold the appeal so the property owners could proceed, but I was concerned that #2 did apply.

It seemed punitive to require the property owners to go through a time-consuming and expensive CEQA process when the building would be torn down anyway, but I felt Speaker’s Garage was associated with someone who was important to residents of Tuolumne.

So I acknowledged the difficulty of my position and regrettably made a motion that the building was historically significant under #2 and that staff should proceed through CEQA review. Only Supervisor Thornton agreed with me. We were out-voted 3 to 2 and my original motion died.

At that point, both County Counsel and I thought the Board’s failure to pass the motion was a finding that CEQA did not apply. Since I thought the Board had ruled that Speaker’s Garage wasn’t historically significant, I quickly and happily made the next motion to uphold the property owners’ appeal. My second motion passed four to one (Thornton dissenting).

The Guest Editorial writer was correct – my first failed, second successful motion, and subsequent vote – took just about one minute.

Several days after that meeting, Supervisor Thornton and others insisted that the Board, in fact, had not made a finding and the item needed to be reconsidered.

Over the next week, I talked to many Tuolumne residents and asked them to poll others. Out of many responses I received from long time residents of Tuolumne, only two people wanted to save Speaker’s Garage. Overwhelmingly, residents said they wanted the blighted building torn down.

When the item came back before us, County Counsel had done additional research. When I asked her if in her legal opinion Speaker’s Garage met the conditions for a presumptive historical resource, she stated it did not.

Next, based on additional questions on typical court interpretations of historical significance, four of five supervisors found for the property owners that Speaker’s Garage did not qualify as a discretionary historical resource and did not require a CEQA review (again, Thornton dissenting).

What does this mean?

The Guest Editorial writer and Historic Preservation Review Commission members are seriously concerned that the Board has established a worrisome precedent. With additional buildings on the list for review for demolition, they fear what happened with Speaker’s Garage will embolden others to eradicate important historic and cultural resources by influencing the Board of Supervisors to ignore requirements for CEQA review.

Many Tuolumne residents are upset, as well. They are upset that others are trying to control their community and that they may be prohibited from removing blighted buildings that property owners can’t afford to rehabilitate.

The reality is that no communities are without any constraints on what they can and can’t do and the Board will uphold existing federal, state, and local laws, including CEQA. Where it is appropriate according to County Counsel, CEQA review will be required but where it is not, it won’t. And the Demolition Committee will continue to review applications for demolition of historic buildings and will continue to condition their approval. The focus should be on balance and what is reasonable.

Our past is an important part of our present and future that should be preserved. But not at any cost. Individuals shouldn’t be forced to bear the entire burden. If a building is too expensive to rehabilitate, but is important enough to save, advocates should be at the front of the pack helping raise funds to do so.

Paula Authier, Mark Banks, Beetle Barbour, Ron Kopf, Jim O’Neil, George Segarini, and Jim Todd.

Give up?

Not only are they friends of mine, but they put aside a long history of contention and came to agreement so that the county could begin to address a major issue – the creation of more affordable housing here. They are the “interested parties” – housing advocates and building industry representatives – that hammered out the Ordinance approved by the BOS yesterday.

Giving credit where credit is due, without both sides’ ultimate cooperation, we wouldn’t have had 3 votes yesterday to approve the Ordinance. You see, there were at least several on the Board who want affordable housing, but wouldn’t vote for an Ordinance that everyone couldn’t live with. So they worked together and got it done for us… and our kids… and our future.

***

Laura Cianci wrote (http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=25836):

“The controversy surrounding the Tuolumne County Inclusionary Ordinance has had developers, real estate agents and affordable-housing advocates arguing for years about what should be included in the ordinance and what constitutes market affordability.

Last month, the two sides together drafted three versions of the ordinance, finally agreeing on the terms of one, and leaving the three remaining contentious issues for the board to resolve. More than a dozen people showed up at the board meeting to present their sides of the debate and persuade the supervisors to vote for their position.”

***

Is the Ordinance perfect? Certainly not. Over time we may learn it needs to be tweaked in one way or another. We will deal with that as we go forward.

But let there be no doubt. Both sides definitely gave. And in the process, contributed to a new degree of public participation in government!

Credit and accolades for compromises and hard work is well-deserved by both sides. Thanks to Mike Laird who facilitiated, and Dick Pland for participating, as well.

Together they did! I’m proud and you should be too.