Following weeks of brewing turmoil between residents of Ridgemark Golf and Country Club and the owners, who have been removing trees in and around closed sections of the golf course, the San Benito County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a 45-day moratorium on cutting mature trees at least 8 inches in diameter in urban areas of the county. The urgency ordinance, called “The San Benito County Tree Protection Ordinance,” was approved 4-1, with Margie Barrios dissenting. Nearly 100 people crowded the supervisors’ chambers for the meeting.
During the public comment period, upset residents alternately called for increased communication with a civil resolution and placed the blame on Ridgemark owners John and Alex Kheriotis for letting a former green oasis become a brown wasteland in advance of their plans to build more homes on now-closed sections of the golf course. The Kheriotis’s, on the other hand, said their removal of more than 100 trees has been done with residents’ safety in mind.
John Kheriotis, the managing member of JMK Golf LLC, said, “clearly, we’d love to work with the homeowners’ association (but) when we thought things were moving forward in a positive way, next thing we know we got sued.” He and his son, Alex, plan to meet with five Ridgemark homeowners associations on Oct. 22 in an effort to work out a road sharing and maintenance agreement, though he did call into question the future of Ridgemark if revenues don’t improve.
“I’m losing $50,000 to $80,000 a month,” John Kheriotis said. “There’s only so many months I’m going to be able to last. The reality here is that if the golfers don’t want to come and play golf and the homeowners don’t want to come to the restaurant and support it, then we’ll close down.” Kheriotis said “the future of Ridgemark will be determined in the next week” with the homeowners’ association meeting and another appearance in court on Thursday looming.
Alex Kheriotis called the Ridgemark residents “litigation happy thus far,” which drew groans from the audience and the pounding of the gavel by Supervisor Jerry Muenzer.
The issue has prompted legal action, with Judge Harry Tobias issuing a temporary restraining order Oct. 9 that stops the removal of trees at Ridgemark until Oct. 30, when an “order to show cause” hearing will be held at 2 p.m. at the county courthouse. It has also been a hot topic on Facebook, where a Ridgemark residents page has regularly featured photos and videos of crews removing trees from the development south of Hollister on Airline Highway. With the general election just weeks away, the issue has also become a political one, with Muenzer and his challenger, Hollister City Councilman Victor Gomez, sending competing mailers regarding the tree removal issue to Ridgemark residents.
Muenzer’s mailer, which features a large picture of a downed tree on one side, said he is “very upset” that Gomez “has been spreading untruths” and accused Muenzer of “doing nothing but watching from the sidelines. That is all blatantly untrue,” the mailer said. Muenzer said his loyalty is with Ridgemark residents and that he directed county staff to place the 45-day mortatorium on this week’s meeting agenda.
Gomez’s flyer, which also includes a photo of a felled tree, said Muenzer’s Oct. 7 request for the agenda item was “too little, too late to save the trees at Ridgemark.” At Tuesday’s meeting, Gomez, a former Ridgemark resident, said “We are witnessing the destruction of the natural habitat Ridgemark residents have come to expect over the years. If the trees are not protected, property values will continue to be affected.”
Assistant County Counsel Barbara Thompson said approval of the 45-day ordinance is a sign that the county intends to study a permanent tree ordinance, and that the window to extend the temporary ordinance could be extended up to two years, eventually. The ordinance prohibits the cutting down of mature trees, 8 inches or greater in diameter, in residential and multifamily zones in incorporated areas of the county, including near Hollister along with Tres Pinos, Ridgemark, the Oak Creek subdivision, Aromas, and other areas.
Planning Director Byron Turner called it more of a “complaint-driven process,” meaning county employees would not be monitoring tree removal unless sufficient evidence was presented by a code enforcement officer responding to a complaint. There are exceptions to the tree removal prohibitions, including disease or immiment danger requiring a tree be cut down for safety’s sake.
Teresa Bettancourt, president of the Ridgemark Homeowners’ Association, said she has “always been a bit of a tree-hugger. Planting a tree is much like having a child,” she said. “Once you plant it, you are responsible for its well being.” She acknowledged that the continuing drought is sure to cause the loss of some local “heritage trees,” but not preemptively. “I’m not saying no tree should ever be removed; that would be unreasonable. What’s important here is the desecration of so many beautiful, healthy trees should not be allowed.”
Patty Spears, an eight-year resident of Ridgemark, said she has seen “perfectly healthy” trees taken down in her neighborhood and called the removal “an excuse to literally plow through with plans to develop the area.”
Landscape contractor and Ridgemark resident Peggy Churchill said that while many of the trees there are stressed due to the drought, they could be saved if property irrigation techniques were employed
Eric Goins, speaking on behalf of Ridgemark’s owners, said the main intent of the tree removal was to make the area more safe for residents who lived near trees “that are unstable and may fall on people’s houses.” He advocated against the temporary ordinance, saying that a delay until the winter months could make it impossible to get equipment to trees that need to be removed because of the threat of them falling.
John Kheriotis said that any new development at Ridgemark would include new landscaping and drought-resistant trees and, he hopes, bring in more customers. “We need more people that’ll play golf,” he said. “Existing members are aging and don’t play as much. Hopefully, one-third of (new residents) will be golfers.”
After the public comment portion of the discussion, Muenzer said the county’s current tree ordinance “failed us in this situation. We need to have something in place so when a large amount of trees are being removed, there’s a process; we have a check and balance.”
Supervisor Robert Rivas said the issue is between the Ridgemark owners and local residents, but “when you talk about public and private issues in San Benito County, it’s all blurred.” Rivas said he is “as green as they come when it comes to trees … but what I see here in this instance is such a lack of communication between local residents and a business entity.” He called Ridgemark “an asset” and hoped that common ground could be found between the two sides.
Supervisor Anthony Botelho echoed the call for compromise, saying further deterioration of the course and subsequent property values could arise otherwise. “Please, look for common ground,” he implored.
Supervisor Jaime De La Cruz said the issue, reaching the supervisors’ chamber late in the election cycle “is political. I feel we could have done something like this four or five months ago.” He said any ordinance that the county comes up with should be able to “withstand any legal challenge.”
The lone dissenting vote among the supervisors, Margie Barrios, said she has “a lot of concern for the residents that live there” and acknowledged that Ridgemark “is an asset to San Benito County and I want to protect it.” However, she said she was concerned about potential costs and liability for the county related to the urgency ordinance.
To read the Board of Supervisors’ staff report and the proposed ordinance, click here and go to Page 92.
To access the Ridgemark Neighbors Facebook page, click here.