As you know from this blog, the closure of the mill (along with two other SPI mills) last year was devastating to the local economy. MANY jobs (direct and indirect) were lost here and a number of folks moved away to find work.

This is great news from an economic standpoint alone. But we have the added benefit of once again having  a local facility where forest products can be processed – important from a fire fuels management perspective. That’s major!

Thanks, SPI and TCEDA and county staff for the elbow grease it took to make this work.

Go Team Tuolumne!

***********

For Immediate Release Contact: Larry Cope, 209-989-4058

PRESS RELEASE

Sierra Pacific Industries to Retool Sawmill at Sonora: Will Create 130 Jobs

In a Joint Announcement, Sierra Pacific Industries (SPI) and the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) today announced that SPI is making a major investment in Tuolumne County by retooling its sawmill in Sonora, updating an older mill that closed there in 2009. This facility, when completed, will incorporate state-of-the-art technology to produce lumber from a wider array of log sizes than was possible under the older configuration. Remodeling of the old plant is expected to begin by mid-July, and the updated facility is planned for operation in May of 2011. This announcement does not impact the SPI cedar fencing mill in Chinese Camp, which currently employs about 80 people.

“We are investing in the future of this community,” said SPI area manager Ryan Land. “Lumber markets have improved modestly and by increasing the range of acceptable log sizes we will be able to bring family-wage jobs back to this area,” he added. SPI continues to invest in its forests and mills to grow more trees and enhance productivity while protecting the environment and creating jobs,” Land went on to say. He added that Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority director Larry Cope has worked cooperatively with SPI to retool the mill and restore jobs to the community.

The Sonora mill closed in July 2009 amid weakness in the lumber market, reduced timber harvests on nearby national forest lands, and increasing state regulatory burdens. In addition, the plant was configured to only accept larger-diameter logs. “When combined, these factors left us no choice but to close the plant,” said Land. At that time about 130 employees were affected by the closure. About that same number of employees will be hired when the retooled plant begins production in 2011.

SPI spokesman Mark Pawlicki stated, “Retooling this mill will help California meet its own demand for wood products, rather than importing lumber from faraway places with lower environmental standards.” “The time has come when more of the lumber needed in this state can be produced in California’s mills,” he added.

Retooling of the mill will be managed by Sierra Pacific Industries. It is anticipated that SPI will hire local workers to help with the project.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Sierra Pacific Industries is a third-generation family-owned forest products company based in Anderson, California. The firm owns and manages nearly 1.9 million acres of timberland in California and Washington, and is the second largest lumber producer in the United States. Sierra Pacific Industries is committed to managing its lands in a responsible and sustainable manner to protect the environment while providing quality wood products and renewable power for consumers.

The Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) promotes the County of Tuolumne, including the City of Sonora, as a dynamic business location and provides business with essential information needed when locating or expanding business in the Sierra – Mother Lode Area of California.

TCEDA’s mission is to facilitate a local economy that is innovative, resilient and diverse, by assisting in business formation, developing a skilled workforce, supporting local businesses, and attracting innovative companies to Tuolumne County.

###

1. Attend a Board meeting in Twain Harte, Tues., Feb. 9, at 6:30 pm at the Twain Harte-Long Barn Union School District Office (Telele Lodge – auditorium), 18995 Twain Harte Drive;
2. Attend a Town Hall meeting in Tuolumne on Weds., Feb. 10, at 6:30 pm at Summerville High School’s library; and/or
3. Take a survey online at www.TuolumneCounty.ca.gov.

The Board would like District 3 residents’ opinions on the following:

• What are the greatest needs within the County right now?
• What are the highest priority County services?
• What are the main issues the County should be planning for in the future?
• How should County leaders go about balancing future budgets?

County staff will draft a 5-Year Strategic Plan reflective of citizen input for Board consideration. Citizens will be asked to comment on the draft plan once completed. The Board will adopt the final 5 year strategic plan in 2010.

The Board is preparing a first-ever 5-year strategic plan to guide our direction and management efforts and would like your input.

We’ll post an online survey you can take between Jan. 26 and Feb. 23rd  (at www.tuolumnecounty.ca.gov) and hold a series of Board meetings in each supervisorial district to hear from you.

Meetings schedule

Specifically, the Board will ask you to answer a few questions:

1. What are the greatest needs in the County now?
2. On what services should the County place highest priority now?
3. What main issues should the County be planning for in the future?
4. How should the Board go about balancing future County budgets?

For more information, please call the County Administrator’s office at 209-533-5511.

I look forward to hearing from many of you in the upcoming weeks. Thanks for your help as we work together to make Tuolumne County better for our children and our future.

Being Chair does come with challenges though, chief among them: managing distinct and opposing interests like district residents, out of district residents, fellow Board members, staff, and the County itself. As you can imagine, it got tricky at times. It was not unlike keeping breakable plates spinning simultaneously.

There were and still exist institutional obstacles in County government to greater efficiency, transparency, and accountability that must be reformed for the Board to lead most effectively. Conditions are, however, light years ahead of where they were when I first ran for office in 2006 and they continued to improve in 2009.

But not all areas improved. Not yet. I’ve learned to raise an issue at least three times so folks can see the forest for the trees. Reforms accomplished this year along with reforms that were rebuffed contributed to a greater level of awareness among Board and staff. Overall that’s a good thing.

Worst of years

I can’t name all the things that qualified 2009 to be the worst of years, but the state budget and its impacts on the County budget are at the top of the list. The state worked hard to divert local tax revenues for its own use, but ultimately was only partially successful. As the economy worsened, the public and staff began to experience stress. Multiple iterations of the County budget were prepared and discarded as revenue forecasts continued to decline. Subsequently, County services and staffing cuts increased stress levels. Early on, we had to do more with less. By year’s end we were reduced to doing less with less.

The Board considered several controversial land use projects in 2009 including the Law and Justice Center property purchase and consideration of an appeal of a grading permit for a controversial antiquated subdivision in Twain Harte. I am particularly proud that the public and staff were heard and treated with respect and dignity on these issues regardless of the outcomes. And for the most part, the Board seems to have mastered disagreement amongst ourselves without holding grudges.

Best of years

There were a number of factors that qualify 2009 as the best of years. Staff and elected officials voluntarily reduced benefits and went on furlough to save County services and jobs. Further, despite the critical need to reduce County expenditures to match revenues, the Board affirmed the public’s priorities of maintaining funding for Roads, Sheriff, and Fire services, while it minimized service cuts to the public and layoffs of employees.

In fact, after an accounting error was discovered in the draft budget in August, three previously unfilled Sheriff’s deputy positions were added, critical recreation services were retained (pools!), and library branches weren’t impacted quite as heavily as they would otherwise have been. These were all bright spots in light of the privatization of some services and in light of the cuts we had to make.

In a well-timed effort to improve the local economy, the Tuolumne County Economic Development Authority (TCEDA) got off to an aggressive start in recruiting new and expanding existing businesses here. And while the County lost a number of businesses due to the economy, TCEDA expects to make several major announcements in 2010 that should help the local economy considerably.

The Board authorized Waste Management to implement a two cart recycling program in the areas they serve beginning next year. Although I was not in favor of extending the contract until 2022 without going out to bid, I am very much in favor of reducing, reusing, and recycling. We hired an illegal dumping enforcement officer this year, as well. His efforts should begin to be evident as folks learn that Tuolumne County has an active enforcement program.

Over the years, County residents and communities have experienced negative economic and quality of life outcomes as state and federal government agencies have not given serious consideration or even evaluated in much depth local concerns, needs and interests. This year a majority of the Board stepped up to voice concern relative to several state and federal resource decisions that will impact the local economy.

Given the loss of the SPI mill and other businesses in recent years, the fact that Tuolumne County contains 76% public lands, strong historic, traditional, and cultural ties to the land, and the fact that state and federal statutes give counties the ability to be involved in their decision-making processes early on, it is critical that this happen. In addition, the Board signified its intent to establish and maintain productive and beneficial relationships with other levels of government.

One vehicle to encourage that to happen – federal and state agency coordination – was controversial, but the Board did not reverse an action in 2007 to initiate coordination with federal and state agencies. The Board’s dialog led to a Sonora Area Foundation grant to Tuolumne County Alliance for Resources and the Environment (TuCARE) to work with community and economic stakeholders on a draft land use plan to establish local policy for planning and management of federal and state lands and resources.

The plan doesn’t establish environmental policy (numerous advocates, federal, state, and local statutes, and policies already exist for the protection and enhancement of the natural environment). Rather, the plan deals with the human environment (which is interrelated with the natural environment). It’s important to note that the land use plan does not revise or impact existing state, federal, or local laws, nor does it allow the public to make federal and state agency decisions. It will primarily apprise agencies of local policies and values that must be better factored into decision-making and management actions in Tuolumne County.

The draft land use plan will be reviewed by the Board of Supervisors’ Planning Committee on Thurs., Jan. 7^th at 1:30 pm in the Board Chambers. Consideration of approval by the Board will follow later in the month or in February.

General Activities in 2010 (in addition to weekly Board meetings, review of agenda materials, and committee assignments.)

• The County completed and dedicated the Hope House, a transitional housing program for kids aging out of the foster care system;
• Along with key community and agency leaders, formed the Safety Net Agencies  Planning Group to help bridge agency shortfalls and service gaps in light of the state’s budgetary problems which inspired a Sonora Area Foundation campaign that raised over $500k to expand efforts to meet the most basic needs of our struggling neighbors;
• Worked with leaders of ATCAA’s food bank, University Cooperative Extension, Ag Advisor’s office, Master Gardeners, and others to plan and seek funding for community gardens to provide extra food for the food bank, local wholesale market, and individuals;
• At Supervisor John Gray’s request, initiated new supervisor orientation meetings with all department heads;
• Worked to improve County/federal agency communication and problem solving;
• Participated in an advisory committee for the Tuolumne County Courts to plan and implement a community mediation program to reduce the number of court cases;
• Participated in ATCAA/Central Sierra Connect’s efforts to determine local need for Broadband and expand its adoption;
• Supported a successful effort for Habitat for Humanity to obtain funding to purchase property in Jamestown for a multiple unit housing project;
• Involved in local foster children placement issues, participated in foster parent networking group, and County’s Peer Quality Review process;
• Served on the Sonora Regional Medical Center’s Civic Advisory Board and Dawn’s Light Grief Counseling advisory board;
• Participated in Cities, Counties, Schools Partnership Summit on Governance examining potential reform measures in light of state budget and governance problems;
• Worked with the Tuolumne County Resource Conservation District, The Stewardship Council, and other agencies to ensure Kennedy Meadows is locally owned and managed;
• Convened first joint board meeting with Tuolumne Utilities District on water issues, attended City and County of San Francisco Tuolumne River stakeholders meetings;
• Monitored State Delta Water Bills and related water issues and legislation, worked with Senator Cogdill’s staff and TUD to analyze and educate County staff and Board members;
• Participated in planning and the Department of Water Resources’ Integrated Regional Water Management Program (IRWMP) interview that resulted in local IRWMP’s designation for funding of future watershed projects;
• Reviewed and commented on United States Forest Service (USFS) Travel Management Rule Plan EIR, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) fish stocking EIR/EIS, and USFS planned removal of Relief Cabin by PG&E;
• Requested California Legislature and Congress to increase efforts to support and fund fuels management; and
• Commented on proposed new electricity transmission line to New Melones by Transmission Agency of Northern CA (TANC).

Chair District 3-related Activities

• Held monthly district office hours in Tuolumne, Twain Harte, and Mi-Wuk Village, town hall meetings, and published over 75 blog posts on County, District 3, and state issues;
• Worked with community members to convert Mi-Wuk Village library branch into the volunteer-staffed Mi-Wuk Village Little Library in the Woods Community Center with T1 Internet service;
• Sought funding for Tuolumne parking & alleyway studies, partnered with Tuolumne community members o hold various public and town hall meetings to discuss the Tuolumne Community Plan, parking and alleyway studies, Memorial Hall use, and law enforcement  issues;
• Facilitated donation of Lyon’s Reservoir Trail parking area in Twain Harte to honor Supervisor Jim Peterson, sought and obtained additional implementation funding for Twain Harte trail, attended Sheriff’s Town Hall meeting;
• Participated in Pinecrest Circulation Study Stakeholder Group, supported Dodge Ridge Transit Bus;
• Attended meetings with Strawberry Property Owners Association, Cold Springs Property Owners Association, Tuolumne Township and The Women’s Improvement Society of Tuolumne,  Mi-Wuk Homeowners Association, Twain Harte Homeowners Association, and Pinecrest Permittees; and
• Established Snowplowing Advisory Committee.

Looking ahead in 2010

There remains much to be done in 2010. Several 2009 Board goals were not accomplished this year due to the extraordinary amount of staff time expended on budget revisions. One of our first actions on January 5^th will be to revisit those goals.

To give our kids a future and a hope and to ensure economic prosperity and quality of life, the Board must establish a youth advisory board to better understand what our kids would like Tuolumne County to look like in the future. It should also prioritize funding for a Resources Analyst to better stay on top of important decisions being made by other agencies, and fund the Board-approved but unfilled grant writer position.

Broadband should also continue to be an emphasis, especially in the Hwy 108 Corridor so we can nurture existing and a new generation of entrepreneurs and diversify the economy. We will also continue working with community fire districts and the City of Sonora to maximize fire protection Countywide.

Efficiency, transparency, and the accountability of County government must continue to increase next year. I am hopeful that it will be the year – my fourth year of advocating for it – that we implement online Board agenda management and video streaming to increase access to our meetings and citizen participation. Finally, the Board must continue to cultivate strong relationships with other government agencies: local, state, and federal. Our future depends on it.

So thanks to my colleagues for electing me Board Chair in 2009. I enjoyed it and learned a lot. Thanks also to staff, our videographer, Kathleen Conneau, audio streaming technician, Jim Garaventa, members of The Tuesday Club (regular spectators), and the public for the respect and honor given to this supervisor and the office of Board Chair.

Next year will have a new Chair (likely current Vice Chair Liz Bass) and new challenges, budgetary and otherwise. Counties, Tuolumne included, will be required to cut services further to continue to live within our means. There will be new crises with which to deal.

You can anticipate more of the worst, more of the best, and more uncertainty. But come what may, I promise you one thing for sure. Next year will go by just as quickly as did 2009. Maybe quicker.

We have directed the county administrator to try to keep some of these at-risk services going for now, but there will still be huge losses in terms of county programs (and huge losses to our residents). We will lose more of our families who will go to other areas to find work. But contingency planning with a caring community is a critical component to minimizing losses and making it through what’s coming.

Craig Pedro, county administrator, recently wrote about the proposed reductions to the recreation program:

•  The direction the Board provided staff on Tuesday was for construction of a preliminary budget which includes full year funding for operations of Standard Park (e.g. soccer, little league, high school baseball and softball, adult softball, etc.) and all three Youth Centers (i.e. Groveland, Jamestown and Tuolumne).
• The Board also provided direction that funding be provided for all Summer 2009 recreation programs and all other base Recreation staff through September 2009.
• During the final budget hearing to be held in August 2009, the Board will be able to reassess what additional cuts the state will be imposing on county government as well as consider updates on all other County revenues and expenses. With that completed, the Board will consider further changes (additions and/or deletions) to the actions contained in the preliminary budget.
• The Board has gone on record that public safety is one of its top priorities, but I know all of the members highly value recreational services as well. I believe that tension is evident in the direction the Board gave staff on Tuesday which preserved more recreational programs at the expense of public safety services. In fact, the preliminary cuts to public safety services ($834,689) out weigh those proposed to recreational services ($318,284) and library services ($293,000) combined.

Over a year ago I asked District 3 residents to help prioritize the most important services for the county to maintain if we had budget difficulties. The top priorities were public safety – police and fire – and roads (expressed by those who attended listening sessions and/or responded to the poll on my website). Largely as a result of District 3 input and what other supervisors were hearing, the county added three deputies last fall. Things have gotten slightly better since, although they are nowhere near where they should be for us to feel totally safe. Given Board direction to balance the cuts, the county is now reevaluating if we can afford to apply for a COPS grant to put resource officers back in the schools. The grant would provide three years of guaranteed funding, but we have to determine if we can fund the fourth year, as required by the federal government as grantor.

It is an inescapable fact that people direct much of their anger at the Board of Supervisors since we are the ones you talk to and see day to day, but let the Governor and our legislators know about your displeasure, as well. In addition to a slow economy, blame for the cuts rests firmly on the shoulders of Sacramento where they refuse to delay implementation of some expensive programs unrelated to basic human needs and are STILL passing similar legislation with funding requirements - even as they promise to take money from schools, cities, counties, and special districts. A part of the blame also belongs to “we the people” for our apathy and for voting to approve statewide ballot propositions with big costs and that guarantee large portions of the state general fund are diverted to fund them.

Are there areas in the county budget that can/should be cut? Yes, and we are doing that. Are there areas in the county budget that will have to be cut that shouldn’t be? Sadly, yes. The county has taken some unpopular actions in the last three years to cut services we could no longer afford, but we must be good budgetary stewards. The state will now have to do the same and it will hurt here at home.

So, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but after expressing it we must move on to develop contingency plans for community solutions. There’s a leadership role if you are willing to assume it. You can be a model. What’s coming – and some fear it may be like the Depression – will require that. The opportunities to demonstrate through example will be many.

Over seventy-five people representing local government and nonproft safety net providers met several months ago with members of faith-based and service organizations to identify upcoming crises precipitated by the downturn in the economy and looming budget cuts. Now, a group is working to set up community gardens and build local food networks, another is cutting wood for next winter that will be available to people needing energy assistance, the Sonora Area Foundation is in the process of raising $500,000 to go to four local safety net provider organizations to help people in need, and we are looking for ways to develop emergency homeless shelters and transition facilities for families who will need a place to live while they save money to get into a rental home. These are a few of the efforts already under way, but there are many others either planned or waiting to be imagined and taken up by caring communities.

If you have ideas for volunteer-run solutions, please click on post a comment below and I will contact you to follow up. For example, we’ve talked of keeping two county pools open in the summer of 2010 – one of them would be in District 3 in Tuolumne – so that kids can be taught to swim and have some recreation opportunities. We will need help to do that after this summer. Some leaders in Twain Harte are talking about raising funds to keep their pool open and Mi-Wuk Village leaders are talking about raising funds for their library. 

Hang in there, friends. It’s going to get a lot worse before it gets better, but we have within us the skills, abilities, and compassion to make it through together. Those of you who pray might ask that we’d be guided by wisdom and compassion in all our decisions and that the communities will rise up to help. Finally, I anticipate a lot of folks will show up at the Board meeting at 9:00 am on the 9th of June to lobby for their favorite programs – a strong showing from District 3 would be good.

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.