Agricultural Commissioner Steve Hajik said the new ordinance is necessary to help protect the county's commercial pear growers. When orchards are left unmanaged or when backyard trees aren't treated, it puts pressure on commercial growers, who must then spray more for pests like codling moth.
“Sometimes they can't even sell their pears,” he said.
It also endangers the puffer program, which uses pheromones and not sprays to treat for the moths, Hajik explained.
The proposed ordinance would affect anyone with unmanaged trees within a quarter mile of a commercial orchard, said Hajik. A commercial grower would have to submit a written complaint to the agriculture department to get the abatement process started.
The current ordinance is pest-specific, targeting pear blight and pear psylla, while the new ordinance would add all pests – including the codling moth – now and in the future, Hajik said. It also would allow his office to get to work on corrective action more quickly.
“The owner has to demonstrate to us that they've been doing some work with these trees,” he said.
That doesn't have to include spray; Hajik said it can mean pruning, and use of pheromones and oils.
Both the current and proposed ordinances have a policy requiring the process begin with a written complaint. The property owner has 10 days to respond to the resulting notice from the agriculture department and must do something to address the trees' management within 60 days.
Hajik said both ordinances can impact the county financially if a property owner is unwilling to take action. The new ordinance would require the county counsel to act on the agriculture department's behalf if going to court to get the trees abated became necessary.
Board Chair Denise Rushing asked how the abatement process currently is handled.
Hajik said now they act when they receive a complaint, and a staffer goes out and does psylla counts to determine if a problem exists. They talk to the property owner and if the owner doesn't respond they move to have the trees pulled out.
Rushing pointed out that the written complaint that triggers abatement isn't included in the ordinance.
She said that sometimes neighbors use county code against each other. “You're adding yet another weapon in the arsenal.”
Hajik said they already have the power to take that action.
Rushing responded that she didn't think it was a bad idea, but she was concerned about unintended consequences.
Supervisor Rob Brown asked if there are problems with abandoned vineyards. Hajik said that issue has come up, as well as concerns over untended walnut orchards. “The grapes should be pursued for the future.”
Rushing raised the issue of the ordinance becoming a backdoor way of going after organic growers. Hajik said the University of California, Davis has organic management practices for dealing with the pests in question. In Hajik's opinion there are two types of organic – one by neglect and one that actually manages crops.
Lake County Farm Bureau Executive Director Chuck March said local pear growers approached the Farm Bureau about the unmanaged tree ordinance about a year ago. He said it's a duplication of state code.
March added that they hope to come back in about three months with suggestions about abandoned walnut orchards. They're also are working on the vineyard issue.
“We're definitely not trying to create a pear tree gestapo,” he said. “It would be complaint driven.”
It also would only impact limited areas of the county, he said. Rushing noted that there are untended walnut orchards in many county areas.
March said they'd like to see the ordinance enacted by the end of April, before the current pear crop is harvested.
Rushing asked how the process has worked in the past. Hajik said he's never had to enforce it during the several years he's been here, because people have complied.
March noted that there was a case in Scotts Valley around 2000 in which the county had to go to court over an orchard removal.
That hasn't been the case since, said Hajik. “Each time I've talked to somebody they've done the right thing,” he said.
County Counsel Anita Grant said both the old and new ordinances include an administrative appeal process for the property owner.
Pear grower and pest management advisor Broc Zoller said local pear growers primarily are using mating disruption – specifically, pheromones – to control pests. That program requires that there not be mated females in an area, otherwise they have to go back to spraying.
He said regulatory issues are taking away some chemicals they can use to deal with abandoned trees. “We're kinda on borrowed time here.”
Zoller said it's not an issue of organic versus conventional. “We're targeting trees that have no management.”
He said there has been an assessment program for some time in which local pear growers pay into a fund that covers removal of unwanted trees. However, the local industry is now so small they can no longer afford it.
Zoller said during the first year after an orchard is abandoned pest issues become particularly critical. “It's a big problem and this is how we're trying to address it.”
Local growers already are seeing increased spraying, he added.
Brown said unmanaged trees aren't an anticipated problem – they already impact growers.
Zoller said they are trying to get people to respond to the issue through education. Like March, Zoller said they hoped to see the resolution in effect before pears hit full bloom in a month's time.
Brown said old pear trees have been used to disguise a local marijuana grow.
Rushing asked that Hajik add to the ordinance the policy of having a written complaint come from a commercial grower.
The first reading of the ordinance was passed 4-0 – Supervisor Anthony Farrington was absent due to a final exam for law school – and will be advanced for a second and final reading during a future meeting.
Property comes available in project area
The board also discussed the possibility of acquiring a property at 3555 Lakeshore Blvd. in Nice.
The property, listed at $184,900, includes a 1,056-square-foot vacation cottage in poor condition and a pier on the lakeshore in the middle of several other county-owned parcels. The cottage encroaches on county-owned land.
Supervisor Jeff Smith had asked Rushing to place it on the agenda after being contacted about the land by local real estate agent Dave Hughes. Smith was interested in purchasing the bank-owned property through a land exchange or use of redevelopment funds.
Because of its location, Smith said the county has been interested in purchasing the property for some time.
County Chief Administrative Officer Kelly Cox said he didn't support acquiring the property through the use of redevelopment funds. He said Public Services Director Kim Clymire is exploring park grants in an effort to pay for the land, but Cox added that he didn't believe the purchase was a priority.
“I don't support the redevelopment agency getting involved in this,” he said, adding that the county hasn't taken good care of its other holdings along the lakeshore. There also are many improvements needed for the county-owned Holiday Harbor property nearby.
For those reasons and the economic situation, Rushing said she didn't know if she could support it either.
Supervisor Jim Comstock asked about what happens when an encroachment happens on another property. Grant said in this case there has been an encroachment lease. There are two parties interested in buying the land and they would have to enter into an agreement with the county. She noted the property's deed has major issues which are being corrected.
Rushing asked if the county is obligated to enter into new lease. Grant said no; in fact, if the county doesn't grant that lease, a new owner can't occupy the cottage. Zoning requirements also would likely prevent tearing down the current structure and replacing it.
Smith disagreed with Cox that it wasn't a priority property; he felt it would be negative to leave the blighted cabin in place.
Cox responded that the county has yet to determine what it's going to do with Holiday Harbor, and the redevelopment agency doesn't have the money. Both Cox and rushing also questioned using county money to fund the acquisition.
Brown said they don't have a plan for Holiday Harbor, and even if they did he might not support it, but he emphasized a plan is needed.
While the board members understand the different pots of money that can be used specifically for such acquisitions, Brown said many members of the public don't, judging by the many calls he receives.
“We have a real perception problem out here as far as the Board of Supervisors turning into the Board of Realtors,” he said, adding he wanted to drop the discussion. “Right now it is irresponsible for us to even be having the conversation.”
Rushing liked the idea of a property exchange, and Smith suggested speaking to property owners on the ends of the county-owned lands to see if they might be willing to trade some property. Comstock agreed with speaking to those property owners.
Rushing asked staff to reagendize the discussion for a future meeting when Farrington was present. A property acquisition such as that would require a four-fifths vote of the board, and Brown guaranteed he wouldn't support it.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
{mos_sb_discuss:3}
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
