Attacment 3
Industrial Timber Land Managers GPU Meeting Notes
June 3, 2005
Location: Planning Department, Conference Room B
County Staff: Tom Hofweber and Martha Spencer (Planning);
Participants: Steve Horner, PALCo; Tom Walz and Bill Blackwell, Sierra Pacific; Gary Rynearson, Green Diamond; Bill
Kleiner, Consultant
Following are the comment/questions received during a meeting on the proposed Agriculture/Timber policies for the
Draft General Plan hosted by Planning staff and staff responses to those comments.
Comment
Timber Policies: Legislative
1. (T2) There was concern that trying to be on the “same
page” with the Forest Practices Act concerning <3 acre
conversion may not always be practical for county residents.
For example, new Water Board regulations in Streamside
Management Areas may require the retention of snags (no
salvage logging within streamside management areas). This
may be unwelcome (and in some instances, hazardous) for
homesite development. We are not sure that this is the
standard you want a homebuilder to have to abide by.
2. (T2) There currently is disagreement between CDF and
the County regarding what area the three acre conversion
refers to and who regulates – is it the three acre parcel or is it
three acre land size being removed from timber production
(and usually converted to homesites). There are conflicting
setback issues for streamside management areas between
County code and the Forest Practices Act.
3. Would like to see a “Right to Harvest” agreement used for
residential subdivisions next to TPZ lands.
Timber Policies: Land Use
1. Withdrawal from IT – I am concerned about the
requirement of a conservation easement for the remainder
lands resulting from a withdrawal from IT. “In perpetuity”
is scary. I don’t feel comfortable giving the development
rights up forever on these forested lands, because we just
don’t know what will happen in the future.
2. The industrial timber owners want the ability to use their
lands as timber lands, but we don’t know how new laws may
affect timber operations in the future. We may need some
kind of additional revenue source such as “hunting cabins” to
help offset unexpected reductions in timber revenue. We
would like to maintain flexibility in our abilities to generate
revenue. We need the option to be creative in the future to
find new revenue sources and do not want the County to
legislate away all our options. If you remove our
development rights, you take away our flexibility.
J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\Industrial_Timber.DOC
Time: 9:00 – 11:00 a.m.
Response
Response from staff:
1. This policy was developed as an attempt to have
regulations for timber harvesting in residential areas
and <3 acre conversions be similar to the Forest
Practices Act. Currently, there is confusion as to who
is the lead in these cases, what permits you have to get
and whose regulations do you follow. We would like
to make this process easier for the landowner.
2. Comment noted. We are attempting to clear up
some of this confusion through this policy and by
developing standards that will be similar to the Forest
Practices Act for Streamside Management Areas and
three acre conversions, and where necessary,
legislative fixes.
3. Comment noted. This has been included in
Policies T6 and T7.
Response from staff:
1. Comment noted. The point of the policy is to
retain development rights currently perceived on
timberlands and transfer them to other locations on
the property more suitable for development. The
policy also includes the term “other suitable
instrument” to recognize additional tools that may be
available that not only protects the forest resources for
future generation but provides some type of flexibility
for other uses that the landowner may prefer.
2. Comment noted. There is concern from County
staff that too much flexibility in regulations will
ultimately result in reduced protection of the
productive timber and agricultural resource lands. As
these lands become further divided and converted to
rural residential uses, the viability of the industry as a
whole becomes jeopardized. The “critical mass”
needed to support the agriculture and timber economy
may be reduced below a level necessary to keep these
industries in business. Also, increased rural
residential neighbors may become vocal opponents to
the land management practices of their industrial
timber neighbors.
-1-
 Attacment 3
Industrial Timber Land Managers GPU Meeting Notes
June 3, 2005

Timber: Land Use Classifications Response from staff:

1. IT - There was confusion over the homesite density for
the IT designation. Are we looking at one unit per 600 acres
or one unit per 160 acres? What does this change mean to
the industrial timber owners? Can we still transfer 160 acres
of TPZ?
1. The proposed IT designation removes housing as a
use by right. The homesite density is therefore zero.
A caretakers unit could be approved at a rate of one
unit per 600 acres with an approved Conditional Use
Permit. A density credit for the withdrawal of lands
from IT for residential uses was determined at one
unit per 160 acres (to protect current density
allocations in TPZ lands). You can still transfer
existing TPZ parcel of 160 acres.

2. IT - We would like the valuation of the current density
(40 – 160 ac minimums) to remain for conservation
easements. We need to be able to go back to our land
managers and tell them that this proposal protects their
interest.
2. Although the TPZ regulations allow subdivisions
to 40 acres under certain circumstances, 40 acres is
not presumed to be allowable everywhere. The IT
designation would give density credit for conservation
easements at one unit per 160 acres. Another option
would be to specifically zone areas now where a 40
acre minimum parcel size is appropriate.

3. Industrial Timber Designation – There was some concern
over non-industrial timber owners being put into this
classification.
3. There were about 5 – 10 owners that are non-
industrial timber operators that were classified IT.
They were completely surrounded by industrial
owners (Tom gave an example) and it made sense to
include them into IT designation.

4. IT land designation – We like what you are trying to do 4. Comment noted.

(by advocating for the protection of future timber
production); we want the certainty of future timber
operations.

5. How did you determine the mapping designations? It 5. This designation was applied to lands that are
doesn’t make sense to classify timberlands by ownership. industrially managed for timber production and where
You should look at capabilities, location, etc. most of these lands are managed through a habitat
conservation plan (HCP).
6. The forested areas around McKinleyville should be
6. Staff will look at this and re-evaluate designations.
classified “T” instead of “IT” to reflect the future
development potential of these forested lands.
7. Comment noted – see Response #2. The proposal
7. Are we giving up value by not having neighbors? I want
tries to retain property values and in fact, staff
to support a General Plan that protects our property rights.
believes may increase the value.
8. The best support the County can do is to keep us
8. Comment noted
harvesting. There is a currently recognition that our
“neighbors” are now located in San Francisco and
Sacramento with influence over the regulatory process here.
9. Comment noted.
9. The AE/TPZ zoning maps are incorrect.

NEXT STEPS:
‰ Provide copies of the proposed Timber policies for comment from the Industrial Timber operators.
‰ Provide Forestry Review Committee with copies of proposed Timber policies for review.
‰ Provide copies of the Community Planning Areas maps for the timber managers.
‰ Provide copies of the proposed resource designation GIS maps for the timber managers to review.

J:\PLANNING\ADVANCE\GPU\PLANTEXT\MEETINGS\COMMENT\Industrial_Timber.DOC -2-