County Issue Conservation : The...

Mary E. Wiesbrock, Director, Save Open Space

Of course I agree they should be restricted from cutting down trees on their land. It doesn’t violate their rights. These special oak trees don’t need to be cleared haphazardly. They should be protected. Los Angeles County has had an ordinance for several years. We have information that sometimes a movie company will go out and cut down trees in Ventura County because they’re not allowed to cut the trees in L. A. County. They’re destroying ancient oak trees and I applaud the Ventura County supervisors for adopting the ordinance. In California the trees are scarce and becoming more so. In Southern California there’s a boom of development, especially in the valleys. The Southern California valley oak woodlands, which are the largest oaks in the United States, are now becoming threatened because of all the cutting. Landowners can build sensibly without destroying the trees. It’s called sensitive development.

Marlee Lauffer, Director of community relations, Newhall Land & Farming Co.

The cutting of the trees on Newhall Ranch had no relationship to the ordinance. It was strictly for agricultural purposes, to allow for the expansion of the orchards, to remove trees that were shading the orchards and to expand pastureland. I haven’t seen the ordinance so I can’t comment specifically, but I understand there are provisions for agricultural uses. Newhall Land has been farming its Newhall Ranch for over 108 years and we’re very committed to good farming procedures. Newhall produces a variety of citrus crops including oranges, grapefruit and lemons, and our cattle division provides grazing opportunities for lightweight calves. The ranch has an abundance of trees and it was necessary to only remove those trees that hampered our farming operation. Newhall Land has a history of being committed to proper management of the land it owns.

Maria VanderKolk, Ventura County supervisor

Absolutely. I think the ordinance that will finally be adopted will allow property owners who have a good reason for removing those trees to do so, particularly farmers concerned with wind rows or oak trees shading their orange groves or whatever. They will be allowed to arbitrarily cut down a certain number per year. So we’ve made some concession for those property owners who have a real reason for getting rid of trees. But trees are scarce and valuable. In my mind they almost belong to everybody. Many are hundreds of years old and they truly mark the character of the area. They’re disappearing so rapidly, it’s important to take every step to preserve them. We passed an emergency ordinance because it became clear a number of people saw this coming down the pike and were getting rid of trees before the ordinance was put into place. My office has been getting a number of calls. It’s kind of sad. You’re talking about 400- or 500-year-old oaks.

John E. Etter, Environmentalist

Landowners should be restricted if the removal of the tree will cause an adverse effect on the environment, such as erosion problems or removing a wildlife food source or habitat. And trees do give a cooling effect. They’re nature’s air conditioners. Clearing 100 trees had an effect on that area as far as creating a hot spot. But the main reason to prevent the landowner from the unthinking, uncaring, clear-cutting of an area is that what usually follows the cutting is the bulldozing of the land. The oaks have been there a long time. Why all of a sudden do they want to keep the shade off their orange trees? There is usually a reason behind what they do. It’s not just because they want to take a tree out. Probably it’s because they have a proposal for their area for development. They do want to develop that in 10 years. There’s clearly been an increase in the activity of tree cutting as we get closer to adopting a tree protection ordinance.

Martin V. Smith, Martin Smith & Associates

I’m for keeping all the trees we can, but sometimes it gets terribly expensive. I’ve had the personal experience where they’ve asked us to move the trees and, hell, it’s expensive to move a big 80-year-old oak tree! I would think each situation might ask for a different answer. In some cases, let them be cut down, and in others it might make more sense to move or reroute for development. I think trees are important to keep. I think each case should be considered individually. Basically I’m for keeping as many trees as we can. Hell, over in Saudi Arabia they’d give an eyetooth for a couple of trees! But part of the new restrictions say we have to move or replace some trees. It gets costly, but then it makes you think twice, and we try to reroute what we’re doing. Just like every ordinance, you can’t make them all happy. Basically it’s not a bad ordinance.