Panel Fails to Get to Root of Issue : Development: Planning Commission can’t figure how many or what kind of trees home builder should plant to replace the 200-year-old trees he cut down.

It’s an issue that has no precedent and no clear answer: If a developer removes dozens of live oak trees, two of them reportedly at least 200 years old, to make room for new homes, how many should he be forced to replace? And how large should the replacement trees be?

That question boggled the San Diego Planning Commission on Friday for an hour and a half and the members finally decided to make no decision at all.

The planning commissioners were clearly frustrated by the case, brought to them on appeal by various Fallbrook community groups and residents. They are angry that developer Richard Blakeslee removed 38 trees by his count--and nearly 100 by other people’s count--and otherwise scalped the 8-acre site of nearly all its natural landscaping so he can build 25 homes along Tecolate Drive, alongside the Pala Mesa golf resort.

The tree removal was technically legal, county officials say, because a previous order that no more than 10 of the oak trees be removed had somehow mysteriously disappeared from the grading permit that he inherited when he bought the property in 1988.

But now that Blakeslee has removed the trees, county officials are trying to decide how many new trees he should plant as replacements.

The county staff suggested that he plant 30 live oak trees in 36-inch boxes, 30 oaks in 24-inch boxes, and 150 one-gallon trees. Blakeslee had agreed.

But the Fallbrook Community Planning Group, the Fallbrook Nature Conservancy and several nearby residents appealed the administrative decision, saying the replacement trees weren’t enough--nor large enough. They want the Planning Commission to order more, and larger, replacement oak trees.

The commissioners by and large were sympathetic to the tree lovers. “I know how hard it is to grow an oak tree. They take several hundred years. I guess I’ve never actually seen one grow,” reflected Toni Kastelic. She added later of Blakeslee’s tree removal: “He either has no conscience, or he was not conscious.”

Commissioner Clarence Wilson referred to the site as a “bad scar” that “appalled” him.

Added commissioner Richard Wright, “How do you determine replacement value? How do you put a value on a 100-year-old oak tree?”

Wallace Tucker, president of the Fallbrook Nature Conservancy, said various botanical organizations have tried to do just that. A 100-year-old oak tree with a 24-inch-diameter trunk is worth about $69,000, he said. A tree with a 48-inch-diameter trunk is 190 years old and worth $98,000. Two trees on the lot had 5-foot-diameter trunks and were 240 years old--and are worth $76,000 each, Tucker maintained.

The kinds of trees that the county staff and Blakeslee had agreed to replace fall far short of those kinds of monetary values, Tucker argued.

Another suggestion was that Blakeslee replace enough trees so that their total, cumulative trunk diameters equal those of the trees he cut down.

Blakeslee’s attorney, Stan Prowse, contended that large oak replacements have a high mortality rate, and that smaller trees--with a greater chance of survival--should be planted. Larger trees would die, “and none of us have a desire to make a bad situation worse,” he said.

Commissioner Alan Ziegaus cautioned, however, that if the county orders Blakeslee to put in more and larger trees than he can afford, “the gentleman won’t proceed with the project, and then we’re stuck with no trees at all.”

In the end, the commission ordered its staff to reassess various formulas for an appropriate solution in time for its meeting Oct. 26.

Blakeslee said after the meeting: “Be damned if I know where this is leading. I don’t know what we’re going to do.”