Felled Oak Trees Still Blocking Developer : Environment: County planners are demanding that the developer of a Fallbrook subdivision plant 210 oaks to replace the 84 mature ones that once covered the property. He says the oaks will be over-watered and won’t grow.

The developer of a controversial, 25-house subdivision in Fallbrook must plant 210 oak trees on the 8-acre parcel where as many as 84 mature oaks once stood, county planners have decided.

But the developer, Richard Blakeslee, is balking at the requirement, raising the specter of a showdown before the county Planning Commission over the aesthetic importance of oaks in a neighborhood that treasures its trees.

Blakeslee contends that the new trees would die from over-watering while he establishes the balance of his landscaping. Although the rest of the ground cover and plantings planned by Blakeslee are drought-resistant and were chosen from a list of plants identified by the county for their low-water requirements, the developer contends that even their minimal water needs will drown the new oaks.

Also, Blakeslee said, the requirement to plant 210 oaks is something he did not have on his budget.

The question of how many oaks should be planted by Blakeslee--if any at all--is perhaps the single greatest issue surrounding the approval of a site plan by the county for Pala Mesa Oaks.

Blakeslee acknowledges destroying 37 mature oaks, many of them more than 100 years old. He said the tree removal, which earned him the scorn of community and nature groups, was necessary--and was in accordance with county guidelines--so that he could grade the site for the 25 housing pads and the streets leading to them. Other trees died naturally or were removed before he arrived on the scene, Blakeslee maintains.

A neighbor who has sparred in court with Blakeslee over related issues contends that Blakeslee actually ripped out 84 mature oaks, all but denuding the site of them.

Whatever the true number, the site today is barren of oaks, save for a small stand two-thirds of the way up the hillside and a few others along the periphery of the property, on Tecalote Drive alongside the oak-studded Pala Mesa Golf Course.

The oaks were an issue in 1979, when another developer was told by the county not to remove more than 10 of the 100 or so oaks on the site. But, apparently through a clerical error, the 10-tree removal limit mysteriously disappeared from the county permits in 1980 and, when Blakeslee took over the project a few years ago, there were no longer any limits placed on him by the county.

Sheepish county officials say they can’t explain what happened to the limit and that, previous intentions notwithstanding, Blakeslee was within the law when he removed the trees.

Enter the Interstate 15 Design Review Board, a citizens advisory panel to the county’s Department of Planning and Land Use. The panel was created two years ago by the county Board of Supervisors to protect and enhance the scenic resources along the freeway corridor and to ensure that projects harmonize with the natural environment.

The panel met twice--in June and again in July--to discuss Blakeslee’s project. The board asked him to, among other things, plant 190 coastal live oaks--some of them with trunks up to 6 inches in diameter--and 20 sycamores to replace the destroyed trees.

Blakeslee refused, saying later of the design review board’s intervention in his project: “I’m of the old school. There are too damn many people sticking their nose in the builder’s business.”

He disagreed not only with the review board’s insistence that he plant new oaks, but with other recommendations having to do with architectural treatment and overall landscaping of his project.

“Their architect is disagreeing with my architect,” Blakeslee said. “My architect believes his designs are exceedingly suitable. I don’t think it’s kosher for one architect to disagree with another.”

Blakeslee said there is nothing wrong with the architectural treatment of his houses, and said he plans to plant more than 600 trees on the site anyway--not oaks, but eucalyptus, acacia and others.

The review board, whose members suggested that Blakeslee has an attitude problem, recommended flat denial of Blakeslee’s project. It was the first time such a project had been summarily rejected by the group.

“It’s hard for me to figure out where this guy’s coming from,” Greg Izor, an Escondido architect and chairman of the review board, said of Blakeslee’s refusal to agree to the panel’s recommendations.

“I work that (development) side of the approval process most of the time as an architect, and my attitude--along with most other board members--is that we know he can accommodate some of the things we asked, but that he just doesn’t want to.”

Another review board member, Hal Jensen, added: “We’re dealing with a gentleman who likes to have his own way and doesn’t tend to put the desires of the community into his consideration. It’s inexcusable.”

Answered Blakeslee:

“What they’re telling you is that I wasn’t immediately responsive to every demand they made. What they concluded is that, if I didn’t, then I was hard-nosed. Well, that’s too bad.

“I’m not hard-nosed. I indicated all the way along, to all parties--both the review board and the county planning staff--that I was perfectly willing to discuss it and see if we could arrive at something that was suitable and reasonable.”

After receiving the recommendation that the project be denied, county staff members decided to approve Blakeslee’s site plan, but with many of the same conditions that Blakeslee had balked at when they were put to him by the review board.

“These are reasonable conditions, to provide some immediate as well as long-term relief as to the grading on that site,” said Jerry Jamriska, assistant director of planning for the county. “It may not please everyone--and it may please no one--but it’s our feeling that it sends a message to the development community to be more sensitive to the environment, and it sends a message to all others that we are indeed concerned and sensitive about our environmental resources.”

Izor said he was pleased by the county staff decision because it adopted the essence of the review board’s recommendations.

As part of the conditions, Blakeslee must plant 180 coastal live oaks--15 in 36-inch boxes, 15 in 24-inch boxes and 150 in one-gallon containers--as well as 30 holly oaks, half in 36-inch boxes and half in 24-inch boxes.

Although the county staff didn’t require the larger, 6-inch-trunk oaks, it required more trees than the review board had proposed.

Blakeslee said he’s not sure if he’ll now accept the conditions or appeal to the county Planning Commission.

“I have a problem with the coastal live oaks,” he said. “My arborist says they shouldn’t be planted with the other landscape vegetation because they would be over-watered and die,” Blakeslee said.

He said he was less bothered by the requirement to plant holly oaks, which can take more water than the live oaks.

“The live oaks have been around for years--in areas where there hasn’t been any water except for rainfall,” Blakeslee said. “Now, someone comes along and landscapes near them and the situation changes. And any watering is more than they’ve encountered before.”

The county staff acknowledged the peculiar, low-water needs of the live oaks by requiring Blakeslee to “maximize the use of native and drought-tolerant species to ensure the survivability” of the live oaks.

Moreover, Blakeslee will be required by the county to provide a performance bond to cover 100% of the cost of installing and maintaining the trees for five years.

He has a problem with that, too.

“The property will be maintained by a homeowners’ association. The money will be there to maintain the property,” Blakeslee said. “The performance bond is superfluous. They (county officials) don’t understand that.”

Blakeslee also argues that the review board probably shouldn’t have reviewed his plans in the first place, because only a small part of it--an upper slope, above the homes--is even visible from I-15. His project is on the west side of I-15, a couple of miles north of California 76.

But Izor said that, even if the tract isn’t necessarily visible to passing motorists, it is visible to residents in the view corridor, and that their interests are as important as those of passing motorists.