By GARRET JAROS/YachatsNews
YACHATS – What it would cost the city of Yachats to prevent an eyesore of a clearcut that in turn will eliminate community concerns about landslides and the subsequent application of herbicides is unclear.
The city is negotiating with the landowner and the logger who owns the trees, but no agreement has been reached and the gap between the asking price and what the city can afford may be insurmountable.
While it was initially suggested the entire 40-acre parcel located near the base of the Yachats Ridge immediately south of the Yachats River bridge would be clearcut, the notice to the Oregon Department of Forestry is for 20 acres or less to be cut.
Yachats Mayor Craig Berdie told YachatsNews this week he met with property owner Clemente Rocha of San Jose and logging contractor Joshua Howard of Dallas, Ore. and that talks so far were informal and “fairly wishy-washy.”
That changed Wednesday when the city council voted to take steps toward preparing an official offer.
Berdie first spoke with Rocha last month after learning of the clearcut. He said then that Rocha was willing to leave the property uncut if he was allowed to keep an acre to build a home and if the city paid to install utilities. But the land is outside city limits, is zoned for forestry use and city, county and state land-use planners made clear that developing it was not an option.
Rocha told YachatsNews in June that he would wait for the city to make an offer and understands it does not have deep pockets. But within days Berdie said Rocha told him he would sell for $2 million. In follow-up discussions however, Berdie said Rocha told him he had not proposed that price.
In meetings between the three, Berdie said Rocha and Howard have “thrown out multiple offers over multiple time periods.”
The last of those offers would have the city pay Rocha $400,000 over five years and another $150,000 to Howard to leave the trees. Then, at the end of five years, Rocha would sell the property to the city for its appraised value.
According to Lincoln County records, the property’s 2024 “in process real market value” is $110,600. But the appraised value will likely be higher, said Berdie, who also inquired informally into the value of the timber.
“The going rate for timberland is between $3,500 and $4,500 an acre,” Berdie told YachatsNews days before the council meeting. “So at 40 acres that’s $180,000, or $200,000 let’s say for goodwill plus paying for some actual costs.
“Where I am at as mayor and what I will discuss with the city council is rather than fielding a variety of seller values, we need to counter with what we can afford to spend,” he said.
The council met Wednesday in executive (closed) session to discuss the issue before announcing afterwards the city would take steps to assess the value of the land and timber. Once that is determined it will consider whether to make an offer.
“I think that we are doing everything that we can, but we’re not going to be irresponsible with peoples’ money,” Berdie said. “We need to have realistic numbers and ultimately realistic protection. But people should be prepared to have the property logged. It’s a distinct possibility.”
Rocha inherited the 40-acre parcel as well as another 40-acre parcel directly to the south in 1998. Attempts by YachatsNews to reach Rocha and Howard for comment were unsuccessful.
Steep slope an issue
After learning about the logging on an Oregon Department of Forestry website in June, Berdie contacted Rocha who agreed to give the city 30 days to come up with a purchase offer.
The city also sent a letter to ODF stating its concerns, which included possible contamination in waterways from debris and herbicide application as well as landslides on the steep slopes above homes within the city limits.
On June 25, ODF updated its notification to require a geotechnical report to address the downslope risks to public safety. It also requires the logger to submit a written plan on how risks will be mitigated.
“When we get a notification like this and it has steep slopes above homes or major highways, stuff like that, it triggers a resource review from our internal geologist out of our Salem staff,” said ODF forester Joe Koch.
The geologist has since finished his evaluation and determined areas “we call substantial public safety risks,” Koch said. “Those areas will need to be left untouched and will have to have what we call a ‘wind-firm buffer.’ ”
Koch forwarded the report to Howard this week. Once the state receives the mitigation plan there will be another 14-day public comment period before logging can begin – at least above those areas.
But logging can begin anytime on the north side of Cape Ranch Road, which accesses the property, Koch said, because the property near the Yachats River was determined not to be a risk.
Although ODF said that section does not pose a risk to the river because of the buffer of trees that will stand between it and the cut, Berdie is concerned silt will still reach the stream.
“We did contact Oregon Fish and Wildlife and ask them to come and take a look,” he said. “And they can work with ODF if they feel like it’s going to threaten any kind of a salmon-bearing stream for example. They said they were going to come out and look.”
12 homes near clearcut
After learning of the clearcut, neighbors below the affected area expressed concern on social media and several showed up along with Berdie and city manager Bobbi Price to speak with the geologist when he visited the site July 3.
Berdie said he trusts ODF is “doing their due diligence,” but one neighbor whose property borders the cut, expressed concerns at Wednesday’s council meeting.
Jason Torres said he is distressed about chemicals typically sprayed after a clearcut seeping into two streams on the property, which merge before crossing his property and entering a culvert under U.S. Highway 101 and continuing through others properties before spilling onto the beach.
“My son (16-months) plays just yards from the stream,” he said “And as kids do, when he plays in the dirt, sometimes he licks rocks. So I’m really concerned.”
Torres also learned from forestry officials that he is responsible for monitoring for any chemicals in the stream, which he said puts an added burden on his family.
Buffer zones are required around streams to prevent contamination but how effective those are is a contentious issue among some members of the public.
In addition, Torres said he worries about the potential for landslides because when his house was built a geotechnical report showed a high risk for slides on one side of the property and a moderate risk on the other.
“So we know that there’s been historical landslides in that area,” he said. “How would logging make the landslide risk any better? Logically, obviously for myself and my family I’m concerned that any logging to that area will create additional risk.”
Torres concluded by saying he did not understand the cost benefit to logging the property considering the risks.
“So I’d love to hear what the city is doing,” he said. “I haven’t had the opportunity to talk with the landowner but I would love to have a conversation with him. But I think it proposes a significant risk to everyone that’s bordering the streamline and anyone that’s along the property line.”
- Garret Jaros is YachatsNews’ full-time reporter and can be reached at GJaros@YachatsNews.com
I would like to express my heartfelt belief as a native Oregonian that the timber industry is completely reprehensible.
I am also a native Oregonian who comes from a long line of timber workers and I must say I have yet to meet a “reprehensible” person from the timber industry. Besides that, it is his property — not yours.
Then you well know that selective cutting and thinning conserves equity value in both surface rights and timber rights.
That”s a pretty strong statement, have you talked to everyone in the timber industry to make sure they’re all reprehensible?
BTW do you live in a home made of straw, stones and mud? Living in a timber/wood frame home would pretty much negate your statement.
My home is made of Hardiplank though obviously there is a wood frame. But your argument and doesn’t negate my argument against the rapacious timber industry and its penchant to put profit, which means clear cutting, over science and the environment, which means all ages multiple species management. Our forests are ecosystems for the benefit of all, not tree farms for private profit.
The profit from my store and every job I ever had was for my “private profit.” Every farmer works for their “private profit.” If you own forest land it can be for your enjoyment and your “private profit”. I own my land for my enjoyment, and possibly in the future, for my “private profit”. YOU have the right to do with your property what you desire, with few exceptions. This privately owned land is not “for the benefit of all”. If you own land you can open it up “for the benefit of all”. It is your choice.
All of you who voted for deregulation and the self-regulating free market now pay the price of economic freedom. And, who ignores nearby land owners and zoning when considering a real estate purchase? All the complainers had full access to the information which plainly disclosed that this was more likely than not to happen. The complainers simply neglected the “reasonable person” standard, when deciding to purchase their property. What is most “reprehensible” is lack of personal responsibility for buying residential property near timber property.
Reasonable person here: what is under discussion is whether or not this action by a landowner will substantially increase the risk for those who live directly under the property to be clear cut. And, by way of extension, highway 101 and the COHO community might also be impacted by an uncontrolled slide. Perhaps those who built the highway should have taken your advice and built in a risk free place.
Living at the coast presents dangers for all-tsunamis, wild fires, landslides, flooding and extreme weather. Everyone knows this when they move here, as nature is unpredictable. What we are talking about is mitigating danger to human life and property.
I am sorry that you consider this distasteful whining or, in the alternative, that my neighbors and I are being unreasonable when we pursue mitigating a danger to our lives and property, as well as the adjacent areas of our community that are likely to be affected.
You are talking about prioritizing one group’s survival interests over another because they neglected to perform due diligence before buying their land that was near a timber farm. It’s the stupid consumer protection argument, like laws requiring vehicle passengers to wear a seat belt just because too many people just don’t want to be safe when doing the most dangerous thing that most people do.
Don’t like it? Then get legislators to re-regulate the timber practice of clear cutting. Can you say “spotted owl?” If US 101 is legitimately at risk, contact ODOT to address the risk and take the land, like they did with US 20. That’s a federal matter, far beyond what the city of Yachats can do.
Thanks to Mayor Berdie and the City Council for continuing to work on this problem. Your efforts are greatly appreciated.
There is mention of herbicide spraying relative to this tree harvest. I believe that herbicide spraying would be associated with post harvest reforestation. I’m not convinced that the land owner will make the significant investment in replanting after the clear cuts. Recently I joined a tour of the Yachats Ridge with View the Future. At one of the tour stops we viewed a very large clear cut area to the east of Yachats and it was pointed out that no reforestation was performed. The subject land owner, Rocha, in this case is not in the wood products business so it seems unlikely that he would spend the money to properly restore the forest. When I looked up the reforestation requirements it mentioned a one time penalty for not reforesting. My guess is that Rocha will sell the property after the merchantable timber is harvested and pass the penalty onto the prospective buyer.
Replanting within 2 years is now required in Oregon as per the new private forest accords.
The property will be worthless once the trees are gone. Who would want to buy it then? From a financial perspective, both parties could be looking at a class action lawsuit in the event of a landslide since they are well aware of the hazard at this point.
Maybe View the Future could do a fund raise to purchase the property and appropriately restore it in an environmentally manner.
Conversation and timely input is important in any situation involving our community, our neighbors, caring visitors and our families.
Mayor Berdie is competent and capable, an individual I respect. I believe we first met several years ago while we both were reviewing the large clearcut east of our city boundaries. We were both concerned about our water assets and our city of which we both chose to call our homes.
The demands of the land owner Clemente Rocha from San Jose and the logging contractor Joshua Howard are self-serving to further their economic gain, not to advance our town. We must also remember this land the city endeavors for is outside our city’s responsibility and legal venue. This situation cannot use city finances to handle a situation out of our city.
“Don’t cut down the trees!” (Can you build me a deck?) “Don’t cut down the trees!” (I need a new fence.) “Nevermind that my house is built out of trees, and and old growth forest used to stand where is was built.” (Don’t cut down the trees screamed the hypocrites).
No one is saying don’t cut down trees. What critics of this industry are saying is to cut them in a way that follows the science and not just greed. That means no monocultural tree farms. It means forests with multiple species of multiple ages harvested in a selective manner. Less profitable but better for people and other species and the entire planet.
Do whatever needs to be done, make whatever exceptions so this man can build his house. He doesn’t really want to log this land. He wants to build a home in his inherited land. The choices are clear. Either he builds or it gets logged. Or, the city/county/state can trade him land that he can build on. This is not insurmountable.
It is his property. Stop whining and complaining. Make sure he replants. No big deal. Sounds like a bunch of communists.
This entire protest started because the logging was going to “destroy the pretty view of the trees on the hillside and no one wanted to look at a clear cut”. Then they said the clear cut would devalue their properties. Now they say the clearcut will create landslides and spraying will contiminate the creeks. Again, this entire conflict started with the logging will “destroy our view of the trees and no one wants to look at a clearcut”. But along the way you started to attach your arguement to “the dangers of clearcuts” in attempt to give you more leverage. Those of you that are complaining, please raise your hand if you are a true born and raised Oregonian. Or are you a transplant that moved here and bring your controlling ideas with you? You want to tell everyone how to live their lives including the man who owns his own property of which the law says he can log his property. You all knew when you purchased your own home you were next to forest land. What did you expect? Arrogant and controlling, to think we must ask you how high we should jump before we do.
Why is the city in negotiations with a landowner to purchase land outside of the city limits? Shouldn’t the city’s financial resources be applied to the needs of the city? The homeowners who are concerned about this property should be negotiating with the landowner to buy this property.
In a previous article city leaders lamented how clear cutting this tract would deface “The Gem Of The Oregon Coast”, yet these same leaders approved the hideous project at Hwy 101 and Ninth street across from Dollar General.
Can the City just draft a ordinance that penalizes extraction related industry for the damage it may cause. I suggest that they spend the money on yearly surveys and water testing and hold the landowner financially and legally responsible for any consequences including the testing and monitoring cost. It’s reasonable to expect that the owner can be entitled to log but past experience shows that when there are no consequences, there is no responsibility. Put a long term plan in place that holds industry and landowners accountable and make it possible to have legal and financial costs held by the landowner. I don’t like the idea of paying more than fair market value for anything and think the Citys money can be better well spent.