County Expected to Delay Oak Law

Santa Barbara News-Press ^ | 02/12/2002 | Melinda Burns

[Inspectorette]

County expected to delay oak law

Grading last October knocked down up to 100 trees

By MELINDA BURNS
NEWS-PRESS SENIOR WRITER

It's been more than four years since the Kendall-Jackson Winery bulldozed 840 oak trees on a ranch in Los Alamos -- four years and nothing but controversy over how to prevent something like that from happening again.

The county Board of Supervisors has not made up its mind whether to side with the environmentalists and take a regulatory approach to protecting oaks; or side with the ranchers and enact voluntary guidelines. Since the Kendall-Jackson incident, two conflicting oak tree protection ballot ordinances have failed. Two series of "collaborative" meetings between environmentalists and ranchers have broken down.

Meanwhile, about 400 oak trees have been cut down in violation of the county's grading ordinance since early 1998, according to the county Planning and Development Department. Most recently, planners said, a landowner on Tepusquet Road east of Santa Maria knocked down 50 to 100 oaks and caused a massive landslide by bulldozing a road on steep slopes. No permit was obtained; and a stop-work order has been issued. County planners say the area will never be restored to its natural condition.

Today, at the initiative of Supervisor Gail Marshall, whose district is divided between the agricultural Santa Ynez Valley and the unincorporated Goleta Valley, the board is expected to call for yet another delay on oak tree protections. "In order to get a workable solution, we have got to get the property owners to stop hiding behind their absolute property rights," Ms. Marshall said, "and we've got to get the environmental community to stop hiding behind tools for a lawsuit. Both of these are fairly extreme." It was Ms. Marshall, together with South Coast Supervisors Susan Rose and Naomi Schwartz, who, in the fall of 1999, first asked county staff to draw up an ordinance to protect oak trees. The resulting measure, endorsed 3-2 by the county Planning Commission last July, would allow farmers and ranchers to cut down only one valley oak and one blue oak on their property without a permit. For coast live oaks, a more abundant species, the rules would be less strict: a rancher could remove a small number of trees without a permit, every 10 years. But Ms. Marshall, who is fighting a recall effort in the Santa Ynez Valley, now says she has doubts about this approach.

"Quite frankly, I'm not 100 percent convinced that what we have directed is going to be the way to go," she said last week. "I'll be suggesting that the board ask staff to come back with a program that might include some voluntary measures."

Last week, the Lompoc City Council passed a resolution against the county's proposed oak tree protection ordinance, saying it would "gradually take away the private property rights of landowners." The Santa Maria City Council approved a similar resolution last year.

Since the late 1990s, county studies show, more than 2,500 oak trees, many of them valley oaks, have been felled on grazing land in North County to make way for vineyards, gladiolas and row crops. Over the past 200 years, the acreage of valley oaks in Santa Barbara County has shrunk to less than 10,000 acres -- a loss of 80 percent.

Along with valley oaks, researchers say, blue oaks also have fallen into decline, as cattle and deer eat the seedlings, and native grasses crowd them out.

At today's hearing, environmentalists will urge the board to adopt an oak tree protection ordinance. "We've had a voluntary plan for the past 200 years," said Jon Evarts, a Ballard resident who participated in the abortive community discussions two years ago. "You have to have a regulatory backstop. I'm not happy that this board majority has stonewalled the Planning Commission's decision. They're putting us off. I feel so discouraged."

The voluntary guidelines advocated by some North County farmers and ranchers would encourage ranchers to plant new trees for every valley or blue oak they removed. The county would hire a coordinator to oversee these plantings. No provisions would be made for the removal of coast live oaks.

JosŽ Baer, who manages two ranches with dense coast live oak forests on Santa Rosa Road and the Gaviota Coast, said the proposed ordinance would add "a whole new level of paperwork" to his daily tasks. "The problem is not people taking out ancient valley oaks and blue oaks," Mr. Baer said. "The problem is that these two species are not regenerating. The occasional loss of a coast live oak is really not a problem."

Up on Tepusquet Road, the loss of coast live oaks was substantial, county officials said. Many of the bulldozed trees have been buried by the landslide that followed the illegal grading; many more above the two-mile road cut are expected to fall, said David Swenk, a county planner. The road is extremely unsafe and can never be used, he said. "It's one of the most significant erosion episodes I've ever seen," Mr. Swenk said. "Restoring to the natural, original condition will be impossible."

Lance Zuckerbraun of Santa Monica, whose parents, both Santa Marians, own the property, said they bulldozed the road last October in order to provide access in case of fire. They hope someday to build a home there, Mr. Zuckerbraun said. "My parents didn't realize they couldn't just go extending roads on their private property," he said. "They are just shattered, because it seems their dreams are crumbling in front of their eyes. We are willing to do whatever we need to make it right."

[Inspectorette]

Ms. Marshall is the same county supervisor who fired an aide for saying the Pledge of Allegiance at a committee meeting.

[Free the USA]

Bump List