Letters 

As your community's forum, the Messenger reprints letters from our readers (as long as they're not libelous, or anonymous!) even if we don't necessarily agree or endorse their views. The following are some recent thoughts from our community:

Revisiting the Woodland Ordinance

Proposing No Proposal

Dear Editor,

I regret that I feel compelled to respond to Michele Johnson's article, "The Woodlands Ordinance Will Be Pruned," [Messenger, August 10] but when an ellipsis is part of the quote attributed to me, I think it is important. That ellipsis made it possible to bypass what was a major focus of the conversation I had with Ms. Johnson and ignore what I feel is a principal fault underlying the development of this proposed ordinance.

Most of Ms. Johnson's interview of me dealt with my view of the overreaching nature of the proposed ordinance and my questioning of what motivated its drafting. When laws are developed to answer philosophical concerns, as opposed to real-world, specific problems, it is not at all surprising that they would have impacts outside areas where the specific problems may exist, become burdensome to those not part of the real problem, and be ineffective in areas where realistic concerns may exist. Thus we get a "Woodland Ordinance" onerous to the small homeowner and, at most, an inconvenience to the large-scale developer. It is this aspect of the proposal that led me to characterize it as being "ill-conceived and poorly written." The answer is not to "prune" such a flawed document, but to reinvestigate its need, and if necessary, draft a proposal that addresses that specific need.

Since I was the source of the accusations that, as Ms. Johnson put it, "there has been little public involvement in the process" and that "The RCDSMM has also been accused of offering to share information from the tree data for the City Green survey with Regional Planning so that they could use it to enforce the ordinance," I would like to publicly set the record straight.

As then-chair of the Topanga Citizen's Firesafe Committee, co-sponsors with the Watershed Committee of the May 13 community meeting, I was present throughout the entire meeting. That's why I was surprised to learn that "Rosi Dagit says that she announced the date of the last public hearing [May 16] at the Watershed Committee meeting held right before it." To check my memory, I asked several others who attended, all confirm they heard no mention of the Woodland Ordinance or announcement of a public hearing on that issue.

As to "offering to share information," I was at the meeting at the RCD office and I heard what I heard. I will be happier than anyone if what I heard--whether through a misstatement or my misunderstanding--proves to be incorrect.

BUT, the question still begs to be asked, why is an agency like the RCD--which has Al Hoyt's vision, an educational resource to assist homeowners in dealing responsibly with their environment, at its core--apparently taking such an active role in developing regulations that have such a restrictive effect on private homeowners? Has the business of seeking grant funding and developing regulations become more important than Hoyt's reliance on the educated judgment of constituents?

I find it very difficult to believe that our Supervisor would approve the approach taken with the proposed Woodland Ordinance. By declaring native trees on our private property to be a public natural resource, the proposal essentially usurps that private property, then has the audacity to not only fail to compensate owners for that taking, but also requires that we, individually, pay fines and/or fees, or bear the costs of maintaining those resources for the benefit of the public at large. Something has gone terribly wrong here.

- David Totheroh

Who Favors This Legislation?

Dear Editor,

In examining the recent changes in the Draft Woodland or Protected Tree Permit Ordinance, I have come to this conclusion: what we are dealing with here is not a "tree ordinance" at all but a major regulatory land use plan. It may be very suitable for large tracts of undeveloped land where there is space and capital for mitigation. For the many small rural single-family properties in wooded parts of Topanga this proposed ordinance is financially extreme and onerous.

With the many added species and protected zones, and with the definition of encroachment into these zones by "development or other human activities," and the change in language from "removal" to "damage," the enlarged scope of the ordinance touches almost every area of our day-to-day lives on our existing property.

Where will you park that visitor's car? Certainly not under a tree, or within five feet of the drip line, or dare encroach into that reserved space.

Where will you put that swing set for the children? Should they play in the shade of that tree? Must you consider letting them play on a hot day in the sprinklers and run the risk of over-watering any of these protected environments?

Have you actually bought a pony, or purchased chickens or goats, or planted a garden, so that you could provide your family with a few of the vanishing aspects of rural life? The 40-foot exemption periphery around your dwelling under consideration by Regional Planning is so limited as to not extend to the 50-foot distance required for animal keeping, nor would it take in outbuildings like sheds, barns, stalls, guesthouses, pools that are more than 40 feet from your home.

What nightmare would a broken water pipe bring if you had to dig to locate it? And what about your leachfield?

How about repairing your driveway to comply with the new fire codes? How will the conflicts between brush clearance regulations and "the tree ordinance" be resolved? Will Topanga home owners be left with a choice of violating one set of laws or another?

What about future landscaping? Would you dare to plant one of the 25 or more "protected species" and complicate life further? If you plant non-natives, will they encroach on the "protected species?"

Did you slight anyone in your neighborhood? Well, if you did, look out! The slightest slip of the tongue, or rumor carried, could land you at a public hearing and saddle you with a significant fine.

Will you be forced to limit your activities to after dark, skulking about on your own property, sawing branches by flashlight? Fearing what someone might misconstrue as "damage," you stop letting anyone come onto your property! Not too farfetched, I believe.

Don't we have enough plans governing development, tree trimming and fire safety? Is every backyard in Topanga a Significant Ecological Area? I think not! Do we need our daily lives run by a few biologists, arborists, foresters or "other interested parties?"

Who favors this legislation? How has it reached this stage? Who supports this proposal? The same small group of arborists, biologists and others who will have to be consulted (and paid!) by conforming homeowners?

We must tell our Supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky, immediately, in no uncertain terms, that regulations like these must not he tolerated. We deserve to retain the integrity of our lives, especially on our own property!

- Alli Acker
Resident of Topanga since 1961

How Did This Desert Become a Woodland Anyhow?

To the Editor of the Messenger:

When Barbara and I and our three daughters settled in Topanga nearly 44 years ago, it seemed we had found a small island of communal sanity, where love of the land--this beautiful natural mountain environment--could be expressed in concert with a social force that cherished independence and the rights of individuals, a healthy, autonomous community, responsible for promoting its democratic destiny, as time and tides might bring.

I firmly believe it is that kind of image that has, over the years, continued to draw people to Topanga--the possibility of living a life uninfected by the epidemic of fear and hate, greed, anger, and betrayal that increasingly afflicts the politics, the economics, and the environmental ecology of our society at large.

Sadly, I'm beginning to realize there is a tide turning us away from that rustic image, a tide of impending bureaucratic incursions into the rights and freedoms of both community and individuals.

Topanga has, over the years, struggled valiantly to preserve its integrity and its unique identity, expressing its communal concerns and responsibilities by activating grassroots organizations--TASC [Topanga Association for a Scenic Community], a Town Council, an Arson Watch, an Historical Society and T-CEP [Topanga Coalition for Emergency Preparedness]. It would seem, surely, we have earned the right to a justly considered spirit of cooperation from any and all government agencies that seek to impact our lives as individual residents and the life of our Topanga community.

A striking case in point of the bureaucratic tidal wash currently threatening not just Topanga or the Santa Monica Mountains area, but all of the unincorporated area of the County, is the Los Angeles County Regional Planning Commission's proposal of a Woodland and Protected Tree Permit Ordinance.

Already, with such a plethora of regulatory strictures that have been imposed in the name of environmental protection, the snarled complexity of this new "woodlands" ordinance seems hard to comprehend.

Rosi Dagit, an "eco-biologist," a principal consultant to the Planning Commission, stated recently in a Messenger article: "the whole goal of the ordinance is to direct development in a way that preserves the many benefits of the native trees and woodlands, and ties the costs to the level of impact, while realizing that some growth is inevitable."

I take her words to indicate that the basic intent of the ordinance is to impact future speculative development, and restrict its destructive incursion into the native mountain ecological environment. I know of no one, with the exception of the implied developers, who would take exception to that aspect of the ordinance.

The conflict the proposed ordinance is encountering lies in its ill-conceived intent to extend its powers to include individual homeowners, and ensnare them in a ridiculously complex and costly set of regulations, restrictions, and "guidelines" that could only lead to a policing system defiant of all our basic rights and freedoms.

Just how this coastal mountain desert we inhabit managed to gain a designation of "woodlands" is a promotion I fail to understand anyhow. The oaks, sycamores, walnuts and willows that grace the riparian profiles of our canyon streams and water-courses, and range over brush-free meadows do not call out for such clumsy restrictive regulations to ensure their protection from resident homeowners as the proposed ordinance seeks to enforce.

And what of the conflict engendered by the County Road Department's extensive plans to clear cut the right-of-way bordering all roads, streets, and boulevards? How does a "woodlands" protective plan square with that massive clearing?

I think it is incumbent on the Regional Planning Commission and its advisory personnel to re-work their conservation efforts toward confronting the true threat to our ecological environment, i.e., excessive speculative development, and further, to accept the property rights and freedoms of existing homeowners on small rural properties to employ their own ecological aesthetics and responsibilities that are generated naturally in response to our having chosen to live in these beautiful mountains in the first place.

Some suggested ecological guidelines? Sure! OK! Complex and costly, binding ordinances? I don't think so!

-Jack Rice

A Word for our Woodlands

Dear Editor,

I am writing this letter because I want to know if there are others in Topanga such as me. I am concerned about the woodland protection ordinance. What I am most concerned about is what does it actually say? I have read numerous commentaries on it. All but Citizen of the Year, Rosi Dagit, have been negative comments. We in Topanga seem to regard Rosi's opinion highly on everything except it seems on something that just might cause us a problem.

Casey Kelley wrote about several "true" situations she knew about.

One which caught my interest concerned a little blind woman forced by Edison to trim her oak trees touching the power line leading to her home.

I have eucalyptus branches lying directly across the lines leading to my house. I called Edison. They sent out an inspector. He informed me that I had nothing to worry about. He said Edison does not consider "low voltage" 240-volt residential feeds a tree/fire hazard. Casey went on to imply that in order to comply with Edison's order this little old lady would run afoul of the WPO. I have not seen a text of the ordinance so I cannot do anything but ask: Casey please show me where in the ordinance that a health and safety ordered trim by Edison would trigger these onerous processes. Also, Rosi, I ask a similar request. Please show me where this ordinance would exempt health and safety ordered trims from triggering the process. Harriet Swensen has a worry about fire department ordered trimmings. Rosi and Casey could you clear that one up too, please?

Casey had a suggestion about exempting small developments from the ordinance and only leveling the gun at BIG developers. In answer to that Casey may I only say three words--Upper Tuna Canyon?

Rabyn Blake had a suggestion of exempting all single family properties under five or ten acres. I would be willing to bet that would exempt just about 99% of current and proposed future development. If you do not believe me then look no further than the last TASC newsletter to find out how a developer takes Summit Valley ridge line property and turns it into one house per 6.63 acres. I ask you, Rabyn, what good is woodland protection that exempts everybody?

Rabyn, I do agree with your suggestion that "education about best management practices is what we need." May I add that we also need clear, concise and correct interpretation of the ordinance before all of these unnamed panicked citizens go whacking away at our native tree population.

I am not sure what to think about the WPO. That is why I have asked for clarification. What I am sure about is that the present oak tree ordinance is a joke and needs strengthening. For my proof I offer up the vacant land fronting the 1300 block of Topanga Canyon Boulevard. This land is presently for sale with Remax Realtors. I invite all readers to stop alongside the road one day soon and explore this site. Watch out for the open septic pits. This site consists entirely of a mature oak grove on a steep hillside. The developer has already asked for and received permission to build two separate homes on this land. In the process a permit to destroy 27mature oaks has been granted. Mitigation required? Yes, plant 27 one-inch saplings somewhere else on the property. Look for yourself, where is the room on this property? When the new proud owners of these small homes move in and want to expand or add a deck etc., how many more oaks come down? Where do we draw the line?

This leads me to my next point. When I read all of these letters about citizens up in arms about possibly having a 300- to 500-year-old tree standing in the way of that lap pool or bedroom addition and then wrapping themselves in the Topanga flag I sat down and pondered. Are we the town that beat Disney and saved nature (the largest intact walnut woodland in the Santa Monicas) really just a bunch of NIMBYs [Not In My Back Yard] or are we going to start practicing what we preach? This includes taking our lumps, when necessary and letting our great grandchildren enjoy a magnificent oak instead of the crumbled remains of that lap pool.

I live in Cheney Canyon. The homesteaders here long ago flattened every oak they could and sold it for firewood. I once had a friend visiting from Fernwood. She let slip, as she gazed out at the vacant lot next door to me one summer day, "It's a desert." Well, all of you blessed with oaks on your property can live in a desert too. Just go ahead; whack away quick before that ordinance goes through. Oh, and am I Holier than thou because I have no natives? I purchased that flat, buildable, treeless, view lot last year-and planted oaks all over it.

- Michael A. Augello

Print Editor's Note: Fire Department ordered trims are exempt. See Messenger, August 7-23, "The Woodlands Ordinance To Be Pruned" for other exceptions.

A Word for Rosi

Dear Editor,

I took down the sign. What amazes me is that any Topangan could drive by and not take down the sign [on lower Topanga Canyon Boulevard]. It seems obvious that all Rosi [Dagit] ever wants is to help Topanga any way she can. To blame her for every government regulation and land acquisition that comes along is absurd. I have experienced this sort of "demonization" before, but I have never seen anyone's name posted on the Boulevard for all to see. I am ashamed of the community I have loved for almost thirty years.

- Dorothy Reik