Timber Industry Eyes Development

Sierra Pacific wants to turn some of its forests into property for home building.
By Jane Braxton Little - Bee Correspondent

Published 12:00 am PST Wednesday, March 7, 2007

Sierra Pacific Industries, owner of 1.6 million acres of California timberlands, is requesting rezoning on 23,549 acres of forests to uses that could eventually allow residential development.

The size and locations of the timberlands -- nearly 37 square miles of forest scattered across four Northern California counties -- have sparked concern among state and local officials.

Sierra Pacific officials view the rezoning requests as the beginning of a long-term process that would give counties more control over their land base, said Ed Bond, a spokesman for the Anderson-based company. Many of the parcels are close to towns and other developed areas, he said.

"We think it makes sense for the counties as well as for Sierra Pacific Industries," Bond said.

The forestlands, spread through Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and Trinity counties, are all in timber production zones, a designation approved by the Legislature in 1976. In exchange for automatically renewable 10-year commitments to limit activity to timber production, Sierra Pacific has enjoyed reduced property taxes on these lands.

The applications for zone changes start a 10-year countdown that would end the tax benefits and allow the company to use the land for residential or commercial development. It's up to county officials whether to accept the zoning requests.

As the nation loses a million acres of timberland annually, the withdrawal from timber production of the acreage is a red flag for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the agency responsible for maintaining the state's timber base.

Any loss of timberlands to urban uses is a threat to watershed, wildlife and recreational opportunities, said William E. Snyder, the agency's deputy director of resource management. It also reduces the amount of high-quality timber produced, detracts from aesthetic enjoyment, and generally increases the fire hazard from the future development that is likely to occur, he said.

"It is CDF's firm belief that changes in zoning that lead to reduced parcel sizes and encourage development detract from the benefits that can be derived from actively managed forests," Snyder said in a letter to Bob Pyle, chairmen of the Lassen County Board of Supervisors.

 

Since 1985, according to Bond, Sierra Pacific has put 48,724 acres into timber zones in Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and Trinity counties. The company maintains 98 percent of its statewide holdings in timber production zones. So its proposal to remove 23,549 acres would not result in a net reduction, he said.

"Our core business is manufacturing lumber. If we don't have the resources to do that, we're defeating ourselves," Bond said.

CDF has no direct authority over the requests by Sierra Pacific. That rests with each county.

The decision has been most controversial in Lassen County, where Sierra Pacific is asking to rezone 5,660 acres to agricultural forest zoning. The acreage includes lands adjacent to a U.S. Forest Service wilderness area, at the south end of Eagle Lake, and across a meadow from a four-season resort proposed for Dyer Mountain near Westwood.

The Lassen County Planning Commission recommended denying the zone changes. Without a specific project, rezoning would be premature, said Joe Bertotti, assistant director of community development.

At a heated Board of Supervisors hearing last month, opponents challenged a change without a full environmental review.

Sierra Pacific has acknowledged that its requests are a precursor to development, said Rachel Hooper, an attorney representing Mountain Meadows Conservancy, a Westwood environmental group. "These lands will not be used for timber harvest again. That is a significant change in land use," she said.

Supervisor Jim Chapman, who was on the Lassen County board when the state's timber production zones went into effect, said reducing the tax revenue was a burden for the county that the supervisors accepted in exchange for preserving the property for nonresidential use, he said.

After 30 years of tax benefits, Sierra Pacific is proposing residential development, which costs the county more to provide services than it receives in taxes, said Chapman.

"For this company to turn around now and cash out these lands without any concern to the county -- I'm not willing to do that," he said.

Lassen County supervisors delayed a decision on the rezoning until next Tuesday.

Sierra Pacific's zoning requests would not change the land use in any of the four counties over the next 10 years, said Bond. And it would free county planners from the authority state officials exercise over timberlands.

"For long-term planning, we think giving a county the ability to make planning and zoning decisions makes more sense than having the state control the process," Bond said.

Plumas County Planning Director Jonathan Schnal said he is conducting a full environmental review of the 7,826-acre zone change requested by Sierra Pacific. The rezoning, which involves land near the north shore of Lake Almanor and in Warner Valley, will go to the Planning Commission later this year, he said.

The Shasta County Planning Commission will consider rezoning 6,443 acres of Sierra Pacific timberlands Thursday.

Trinity County has rezoned 3,620 acres of Sierra Pacific timberlands to open space, blocking development. County officials could entertain additional zone-change requests when they complete a revision of the county general plan, said Jeanne Bonomini, a Trinity County senior planner.