Our Issue: Minimum parcel size required in order to rezone to the timber production zone.
Letter 1 l Letter 2 l Letter 3 l Letter 4 l Letter 5 l Letter 6 l Negative Declaration Nov. 2007
WEBSTER & ASSOCIATES
2-2590 EAST CLIFF DRIVE
SANTA CRUZ, CA 95062
831-462-6237
April 14, 2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Hearing on TPZ acreage limitation.
Dear Supervisors:
I am a California Registered Professional Forester (#1765), an ISA Certified Arborist (WE-6314A) and the President of Webster & Associates, Consulting Foresters. I have been a practicing forester in the Santa Cruz Mountains since 1976. I have also had an office in Sonoma County and practiced forestry in Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt, San Mateo, Monterey and Santa Cruz counties. I have previously served on the California Licensed Foresters Association Board of Directors, the Coast District Technical Advisory Committee to the State Board of Forestry, the Best Management Practices Committee to the Board of Forestry, co-founder of the Central Coast Forestery Association and a timberland owner as well.
The Santa Cruz County forestry community has led the way statewide in improved forestry practices and has been on the cutting edge of sustainable forestry practices. It is recognized statewide as having the most stringent forestry practices. It was noted in a recent Forbes Magazine article and covered in the Santa Cruz Sentinel that Santa Cruz County is one of the five worst communities in the United States to do business. This is demonstrated by the local environmentalist community efforts to back measures since 1976 to make the climate increasingly difficult for the forest products industry to survive. From 1975 forward we have seen a notable decline in the number of sawmills doing business in the County. Previously we have had Holmes Lumber, Scarborough Lumber, Big Creek Lumber (local mills), as well as Harwood Products, Philo Lumber, Georgia Pacific, Sequoia Forest Products, Redwood Empire and Green Valley Sawmills buying local timber. Forest landowners are now down to only Redwood Empire and Big Creek Lumber. This is closely correlated to the increasing cost of doing business here, and is especially difficult for the smaller landowners.
The first issue I would like to address is the frequently stated belief that large parcels zoned TPZ will reduce controversy surrounding proposed timber harvests in the Santa Cruz Mountains. My experience and observation over the years is that this is clearly not the case. Some examples of smaller non TPZ THP’s with minimal controversy are the following harvest: Carroll, Webster (my property, 10 acres zoned SU), Cury, Luther, several Tim Peete Projects, Maupin, Locatelli/Harwood, Hubback, Biscevic, Krupocki, and many more. An example of large TPZ parcels generating significant controversy are the following: Big Basin Water Company, Redwood Empire (Lompico and Ramsey Gulch), Big Creek/Walsh, St Francis, City of Watsonville/Rattlesnake Gulch, Holmes/Manson Creek, and many others. Clearly size of parcel and zoning has little to do with the level of protest over a harvest.
If the zoning limitation is not changed it will have minimal effect on the number of THP’s proposed for rezoning and future harvest. It is self limiting because with the high cost of THP’s, it is unlikely that many smaller parcels (under 20 acres) will be proposed for harvest or rezoning unless they are extremely well stocked and productive forestland. Increasing the acreage will hurt a few smaller forest landowners who happen to own such parcels.
While the size and volume of smaller harvests varies, in general, 150,000 board feet is near the minimal size for an economical harvest unit. If a plan has few environmental and political constraints, it may go as low as 100,000 board feet. In order to yield a harvest of 150,000 board feet, the parcel must contain a total volume of about 300,000 board feet. In my experience there are some ten acre parcels that run 30,000 board feet per acre. In fact my own and David Cury’s ten acre parcels at the end of Glen Haven Road have such stands of timber. We both rezoned to TPZ several years ago and have conducted two, light, selective harvests since 1986.
The average site class of redwood forest in the Santa Cruz Mountains is Site Class 3. This is a measure of site productivity and is measured by a site curve of the height of dominant trees at 100 years of age (copy attached). That is site index 140, the average height of the dominant trees. The most referenced yield table in use in the Santa Cruz mountains was prepared by Lindquist and Palley in 1963 (copy attached). That table reveals that site index 140 at 100 years of age yields 114,600 board feet per acre. Dividing the volume by 100 years means the average acre grows 1146 board feet per acre per year. That means that a 10 acre parcel could yield 17,190 board feet per acre on a fifteen year cutting cycle or 171,190 board feet per harvest on a sustained yield basis. This exceeds my estimated minimum harvest of 150,000 board feet. Of course that means that the entire parcel must be fully stocked, and many ten acre parcels will not meet that criteria. Many will, however. Since the minimum return time by Santa Cruz County rules is 10 years if the harvest is less than 50% of the trees greater than 18 inches DBH and 14 years if the harvest is 51 to 60%, the 15 year cycle is reasonable.
Considering the above, I am recommending that the Board of Supervisors leave the acreage limitation for TPZ rezoning as it is, or, at the very least, increase it to no more than 10 acres. If the Board is so inclined, I am offering to take the Board on a field trip of my 10 acre parcel at its convenience, so they can view the results of such management practices.
Thank you for consideration of my views.
Sincerely,
Roy Webster, owner
Webster & Associates
back to the top
Letter 2
April 17, 2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Hearing on TPZ acreage limitation.
Dear Supervisors:
The County of Santa Cruz has talked big for many years about how much value it places on “open space”. One gets the impression there could be nothing finer than wide expanses of undeveloped land in the County’s view. Here is a golden opportunity to make good on these goals.
The best way to maintain open space is to make it profitable for the owners of that space to leave it in that condition. It creates an incentive. In a government’s toolbox, the most expedient tools are tax structure and zoning rules. Using these tools you can make it profitable and desirable to leave land as open space. The most effective “open space” zoning is TP; the land remains in private hands, which relieves government from the burden of maintaining that land; it remains on the tax rolls; it is nearly impossible to use the land as anything other than open space. The whole point of the zoning is to leave the land as open space for timber production (aka “growing forests”).
A TP zoning is not a carte blanche to harvest timber; all of the timber harvest regulations and requirements must still be met before any timber moves. The County of Santa Cruz lies in the CDF Southern Subdistrict, which only allows selective harvests on a ten year or longer rotation. Thus, the rezoning of a property does not mean the owner is going the immediately run a timber harvest, he merely retains his right to do so some time in the future. Nor is it easy to cut timber and rezone back to a non-timber zoning. Once you are in TP, the land must remain forest land; it is very hard and expensive to change out of TP. Check your records; just how many parcels do you have recorded that have changed from TP to another designation?
When people buy a parcel of land, they check its zoning designations to learn what they may do with that land. In the past, parcels of zonings other than TP were still able to harvest timber, and many of those owners want to keep that option. A timber harvest can provide the money to pay for the land’s expenses or put in needed improvements, such as fish-friendly stream crossings or erosion control measures. A timber harvest can reduce fuel loads and improve fire safety for the area.
People who zone their land TP are dedicated to maintaining their land as open space. They don’t want to subdivide or build commercial tracts; they don’t want to grow row crops. If the County is truly interested in maintaining its open space, it will make it easy for these people to achieve their goals, not continue to throw up road blocks.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely,
Catherine Moore, landowner
1700 Eagle Tree Lane
Felton, CA 95018
back to the top
Letter 3
Santa Cruz County Planning Department April 18, 2007
4th floor, 701 Ocean Street
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Please include this letter in the staff report for the upcoming BoS item regarding requirements to rezone parcels to TPZ.
Any proposed change to the current acreage requirements to rezone timberland to the Timber Production Zone (TPZ) requires a full Environmental Impact Report. Any other route will yield an arbitrary number based on non-scientific information.
The cumulative impacts of the ever-increasing number of timber regulations should be carefully considered. There are more than 1000 State Board of Forestry regulations governing timber harvesting locally, as well as a growing number of extremely onerous regulations from several state and federal agencies. In 1999, the State Board of Forestry adopted several additional local regulations including the following:
926.23 Contents of Plan [Santa Cruz County]
In addition to 14 CCR 1034 the following shall apply in Santa Cruz County:
When log hauling is proposed over non-appurtenant private roads, the RPF shall provide:
(1) Information substantiating the timber owner’s legal right to access or use said private road(s).
(2) A statement as to the estimated number of total logging truck loads to be removed and the approximate number of haul days and location of proposed logging truck staging areas.
(3) A statement as to how obligations to maintain the road shall be satisfied
commensurate with use.
(4) Specific measures which provide for the safe use of the road, such as flag persons, signage, pilot cars and hours of restriction.
(5)Videotape. photograph or other means of documentation for noting the existing conditions of the road.
(b)The RPF shall provide a map showing the location of the flagged property boundaries along with any documentation that substantiates -the property line.
(c)The description of the plan area shall include the County Assessor Parcel Number(s) for those parcel(s) within which timber operations are to be conducted.
(d)The RPF shall include within the notice to the landowner section of the plan the following statement: “Section 16.22.030 of the County Code states that any road or bridge constructed pursuant to a Timber Harvest Permit issued by the State of California. if used to serve purposes other than forest management activities shall be considered new and shall be subject to all County design standards and applicable policies including County grading and bridge permits.”
I include this specific rule since misinformation has been provided to the Supervisors on this issue of access.
Also, I notice on the Planning Commission agenda for April 25th, an item affecting land use on rural properties of 10 acres and less. This “groundwater recharge’ item was before the Board of Supervisors previously, so they should be familiar with the more stringent regulations currently being crafted which may affect the property rights of rural land owners. This too should be considered as pertinent to the timber discussion.
Smaller properties with a zoning such as “Special Use” which have long carried a higher tax rate in order to be allowed additional uses of their private property should be fully compensated for any loss of property value as well as refunded the amount of the higher tax rate if their right to rezone to TPZ is eliminated.
The majority of smaller forested parcels in this county are owned by individual families. These families will be greatly impacted by any increase in the acreage size required in order to rezone to TPZ. For many families, their trees are their savings account. Additionally, it is through a selective timber harvest that roads and culverts are upgraded, and necessary fuel reductions can occur. Once zoned as TP, it is extremely difficult to change the zoning for a different use, contrary to popular urban legends.
Lastly but most importantly, all landowners who are potentially affected by any proposed change in policy should be notified by the County of Santa Cruz of all public hearings on this issue. This obligation should not fall onto the shoulders of private citizens.
Sincerely,
Lisa Rudnick
Ben Lomond, CA
back to the top
Letter 4
April 23, 2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, 5th floor
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Item 32 on agenda of April 24, 2007
Dear Supervisors,
Before proposed changes to acreage requirements to rezoning to TP are finalized, the County of Santa Cruz needs to contact all potentially affected landowners. They must have a chance to consider their changed management options and decide what actions they need to take to protect those land properties they find most valuable. Additionally:
- Any proposed change to the current acreage requirements to rezone timberland to the Timber Production Zone (TPZ) requires a full Environmental Impact Report. People who are no longer able to manage their land for timber will find other uses for that property and the impacts of those changes need to be assessed.
- The cumulative impacts of the ever-increasing number of timber regulations should be carefully considered. There are more than 1000 State Board of Forestry regulations governing timber harvesting locally, as well as a growing number of extremely onerous regulations from several state and federal agencies.
- Owners of smaller properties with a zoning such as “Special Use”, which have long carried a higher tax rate in order to be allowed additional uses of their private property, should be fully compensated for any loss of property value as well as refunded the amount of the higher tax rate if their right to rezone to TP is eliminated.
- The majority of smaller forested parcels in this county are owned by individual families. These families will be greatly impacted by any increase in the acreage size required in order to rezone to TP. For many families, their trees are their savings account.
- It is through a selective timber harvest that roads and culverts are upgraded, and necessary fuel reductions occur. Curtailing landowners’ ability to harvest timber in smaller plots will thus degrade the safety of both them and their neighborhood.
- Once zoned as TP, it is extremely difficult to change the zoning for a different use, contrary to popular urban myths.
- TPZ lands are the most regulated and scrutinized within the county’s forest lands. The timber harvesting process is subject to extraordinary review that other land uses don’t receive. This results in higher land use standards.
- The timber yield tax goes directly to the County coffers.
The County should allow for rezoning of any parcel which has applied for TPZ during this period since the lawsuit began. Some landowners who applied or inquired about rezoning, were told that they would have to tear down structures in order to rezone. This is known as placing a condition on the rezone, which is no longer allowed, according to the CA Supreme Court ruling. These people should all have the opportunity to have their applications reviewed again, and processed before the acreage size requirement is increased.
Opponents to timber harvesting point out that 5 acres is the smallest acreage requirement in the State for rezoning to TP. What they don’t mention is that other counties allow timber harvesting on lands not zoned TP. The volumes of pages submitted to you by the Lompico Watershed Conservancy are completely meaningless, due to this fact, plus the fact that clearcutting is still practiced in many of the northern counties, while it has neither occurred nor been allowed in this area for over 50 years.
Once again, all landowners who are potentially affected by any proposed change in policy should be notified by the County of Santa Cruz of all public hearings on this issue.
Sincerely,
Cate Moore
President
Central Coast Forest Association
back to the top
Letter 5
April 30, 2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, 5th floor
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Item 43 on agenda of May 1, 2007
Dear Supervisors,
The County of Santa Cruz won from the judgment of the California Supreme Court the right to regulate where timber harvesting may take place through the mechanism of property zoning. Santa Cruz County government is currently seeking to further extend the timber harvest limitation through an increase in the minimum size of a TP-zoned property. The County needs to remember that it won this lawsuit through a loophole; at the time the suit was argued, the County declared that all a property owner needed to do to retain his timber harvesting rights would be to rezone.
The County is now attempting to lay false its claim; it now seeks to limit who may rezone based on plot size, thus cutting out a very large number of landowners from making this choice. This constitutes a “taking”; all those people who will be prohibited from rezoning may no longer use a significant portion of their personal property, their trees, and the County historically has been unwilling to compensate these owners for their loss. This constitutes a significant legal exposure for the County of Santa Cruz and it should consider carefully any move it makes to put itself in this position.
Before proposed changes to acreage requirements to rezoning to TP are finalized, the County of Santa Cruz needs to contact all potentially affected landowners. Landowners who are subjected to this taking and are not informed it is happening will be rightfully distressed.
Please remember that no other county in California requires TP zoning before a timber harvest may be considered. This proposed regulation will put Santa Cruz County out of step with the remainder of the State and may likely once again leave the County of Santa Cruz open to litigation.
Sincerely,
Cate Moore
President, Central Coast Forest Association
back to the top
Letter 6
May 16, 2007
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
701 Ocean Street, 5th floor
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
RE: Minimum acreage requirement for rezoning to TP, Item tbd, May 22, 2007 Board of Supervisors meeting
Dear Supervisors,
The Central Coast Forest Association, an association of forest landowners and forestry professionals, wishes to inform you that timber rights can be, and in some instances are, held separately from land ownership in Santa Cruz County. In other words, it is quite possible for a parcel of land and its timber to have separate owners. In other instances, the only usable property left on the land may be the timber; Measure J may have removed development options from the property.
This creates a situation where your proposed minimum acreage for TP rezoning in conjunction with the requirement that a parcel be zoned TP to perform a timber harvest may create a one hundred percent taking of the timber property. As mentioned before, other counties allow timber harvesting on zones other than TP, which makes their minimum acreages irrelevant for determining where timber harvesting can occur. Timber rights are quite valuable; please discuss the implications of this with County Counsel and in public at the next meeting.
We strongly urge the Board to contact directly all affected property owners. It is too much to expect all property owners to have read the notifications section of the local papers, especially if the landowner does not live locally. There are many people who must now make a decision about how they want to handle their property and they should know all of the ramifications as they make their decision. Some people may need additional time in order to make a zoning change. For instance, properties bound by Williamson Act contracts may be unable to make a zoning change until their contracts are up. Additionally, local foresters are not always available to write Timber Management Plans during their busy season, and have stated that several months are required to write many of these plans.
Sincerely,
Cate Moore
President, Central Coast Forest Association
back to the top
|
