The property management company at Lake Arrowhead Village bypassed a key part of the regulation process for what it said would be the makeover of a key portion of its visually prominent span from the village’s Center Stage to the end of the peninsula, and uprooted nearly a dozen century old trees without first obtaining a permit to do so.
The San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department, which includes the county’s code enforcement division, confirmed that JLL, which manages Lake Arrowhead Village, nor JLL’s corporate parents, Jay Kerner and US Realty Partners, Inc., did not obtain nor apply for tree removal permits before several trees were removed preparatory to grading of the property.
While there had been some degree of publicity with regard to the renovations that JLL, Jay Kerner and US Realty Partners, Inc. are pursuing along Lake Arrowhead Village’s lakefront peninsula, that trees and other vegetation would be substituted out for concrete, steel and other inanimate objects was not made clear prior to the work beginning this week, angering some local residents who said they would have brought their protests to bear in timely manner if they had been informed ahead of time.
Lake Arrowhead Village is a separate from the Arrowhead Lake Association, which manages and maintains Lake Arrowhead and its docking facilities and looks after the interests of the the property owners of Arrowhead Woods, the exclusive neighborhood bordering the lake
While the Arrowhead Lake Association owns Lake Arrowhead, the Village is a privately-owned tourist attraction, which features a range of shops, restaurants, and activities open to the public.
On Friday, April 25, Rochelle Smotherman, JLL’s resident property manager at the lake, sent business owners in the village an email in which she announced that “improvements” were about to commence between Lake Arrowhead Center Stage and the end of the peninsula, and that the first order of business was to have the contractor on the project, Youngren, put “fencing… in place,” after which, she said, “tree demolition will commence, lasting several days. Following this, common area demolition and earthwork will begin, continuing for approximately three weeks.”
By Sunday night, local residents had learned from one of the business owners of what was in the offing.
The following day, April 28, word reached Hugh Bialecki, president of the Save Our Forest Association. Bialecki dashed an email off to Smotherman, which was electronically carbon copied to San Bernardino County Supervisor Dawn Rowe and Rowe’s office’s representative to the county’s mountain communities, Robin Bull.
“The Save Our Forest Association, Inc., has been contacted by several Lake Arrowhead Village tenants expressing their concern over the tree demolition. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak with you on Tuesday morning regarding the renovation area and the associated plans.”
Bialecki wrote, “Looking at the San Bernardino County website, Land Use Services, Mountain Region Environmental Documents there was no current project listing for the Lake Arrowhead Village renovation.” He then obliquely referenced the California Environmental Quality Act, essentially implying that JLL, Jay Kerner and US Realty Partners, Inc. had neglected to abide by its provisions, which included adhering to an environmental certification process that should have been processed by the San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors as the unincorporated county areas’ ultimate land use authority.
“Is there a notice of availability and initial study you could refer me to that outlines the project and the considerations for significant impacts such as noise, biological resources, aesthetic, geology and soils, hydrology, etc.?”
Bialecki then cut to the heart of the issue that had animated him and others.
“In San Bernardino County tree cutting is regulated under County Code Chapter 88.01 which aims to protect native trees and plants,” Bialecki propounded. “A tree or plan removal permit is generally required for any removal of regulated trees or plants, particularly those in conjunction with land use applications or development permits.” Bialecki quoted from Code Section 88.01.050, which covers the subject of native tree or plant removal permits, which spells out that a removal permit for each tree to be removed is required, which extends to “expert certification” that removing the trees in question will not result in ecological harm. That quote reads, “The applicable review authority may require certification from an appropriate arborist, registered professional forester or a desert native plant expert that the proposed tree removal, replacement, or revegetation activities are appropriate, supportive of a healthy environment, and in compliance with this chapter.”
Bialecki then noted that San Bernardino County has extended especial protections for naturally occurring trees and plants in the mountain communities. He quoted a passage from the County Code which states “In the mountain region only, the applicable review authority shall also make all of the following findings:
(A) Where improvements are proposed, the design of the improvements ensures that at least the following minimum percentage of the subject parcel will be maintained or established in a natural undeveloped vegetation or revegetated condition sufficient to ensure vegetative coverage for a forest environment, as determined by the applicable Review Authority. (1) Twenty percent of commercial, industrial, and administrative/professional uses.”
Bialecki then wrote, “Please provide the tree survey which identifies the subject parcel for renovation and that given the proposed tree removal, that the parcel meets the criteria for the minimum twenty percent of natural undeveloped vegetation. Please provide by return email the notice of availability/initial study (if conducted), development permit, grading permit, the tree removal permit as approved by the director, and the expert certification.”
Bialecki directly addressed Smotherman, implying without directly stating that JLL was potentially harming its own interests by callously removing the trees. “You likely appreciate that a major attraction to the Lake Arrowhead Village is the spectacular setting in the San Bernardino Mountains with Lake Arrowhead as its centerpiece,” Bialecki wrote. “Preservation of our natural habitat, to the greatest degree possible, creates a unique impression in the local community and for our out-of-town visitors that is not easily matched in Southern California.”
Bialecki sought a meeting with Smotherman at which he had hoped he might prevail upon her to alter the renovation project by dispensing with the removal of the trees.
On April 29, with JLL’s representative, Josh Binkley, present, employees of Youngren began the demolition of trees.
Bialecki sent another email to Smotherman in an effort to trigger a discontinuation of the tree removals. “Please call a halt to tree cutting today, while this is discussed,” he pleaded.
In an effort to bring the authority of the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department and its code enforcement subdivision to bear, Bialecki that morning went to the county’s satellite building in Twin Peaks, only to discover that the building department office there is closed on Tuesdays. Consulting the San Bernardino County Land Use Services Department’s website, he found there was no mention or reference of the renovation project. He thereupon, at 12:40 p.m., sent an email to Ignacio Nuñez, the head of the San Bernardino County Department of Land Use Service’s code enforcement division, informing him that he had been “in contact with the LA Village senior property manager regarding demolition of over-100 year-old specimen trees in the peninsula area.” Noting that the county website provided no information about the project and that the Twin Peaks building division office was closed that day, he asked Nuñez, “Can you verify today if there are tree removal permits, grading permits and other required county regulations being met for these actions? Several LA Village tenants have contacted me in dismay, wondering why this is happening and if it is legal.”
Bialecki’s email, while succeeding in notifying he county about what was occurring, did not result in getting the county to force JLL and Youngren to discontinue the destruction of the trees.
On April 30 at 9:01 am, Nuñez Nunez responded to Bialecki in a terse email that stated, “Thank you for your email. We are aware of the issue and are working with an applicant to achieve compliance.”
An hour-and-11-minutes later, at 10:12 am, Bialecki responded to Nunez, acknowledging Nuñez Nunez’s email and writing, “Please advise as soon as possible if there were the required tree cutting permits from the county land uses services [department], as well as grading permits, landscape re-vegetation permits and other building permits for this renovation. The Save Our Forest Association and many community members, as well as Village tenants, would like to understand the scope and status of this project without having to initiate a public records request.”
At 3:45 pm, Nuñez responded to Bialecki, stating,
Land Use Services is actively working with the applicant to ensure all required development permits for the renovation of Lake Arrowhead Village are in place. The applicant worked closely with the county to obtain the necessary permits prior to beginning construction. However, they were not informed that tree removal permits were required in connection with certain grading and building activities. The applicant is now working to comply by submitting the necessary tree removal permit application.”
Nuñez added, “Code enforcement staff have visited the site, and we will continue working with the applicant to resolve the issue. I’ll follow up with you later regarding your specific request.”
Nuñez’s response provoked a flash of anger throughout a cross section of the Lake Arrowhead community who became aware of it and raised more questions than it answered. Reading between the lines, those who analyzed Nuñez’s email concluded that neither JLL nor Jay Kerner nor US Realty Partners, Inc. nor Youngren had informed the county about its plans to remove the trees. To all appearances, what seemed to be the case was that JLL and Youngren calculated that it would be far easier to ask for and obtain forgiveness for removing the trees after having done so than to get permission ahead of time.
The Sentinel sought to find out whether the county imposes fines for removing a tree without first securing a tree removal permit and, if that is indeed the case, what the schedule of fines is. County officials, while acknowledging that tree removal permits are indeed “required” for destroying an existing tree, nonetheless were unable to provide any kind of fine schedule.
The question as to what kind of penalty might be assessed in the current case is complicated by the consideration that the property along the peninsula is not residential in nature but considered commercial, an adjunct to commercial property or community open space.
Deeds pertaining to Lake Arrowhead residential properties dating from the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s 1970s and 1980s available to the Sentinel indicated homeowners are prohibited from cutting down living trees unless the cutting is approved by an architectural committee affiliated with the Arrowhead Lake Association and its corporate affiliate Lake Arrowhead Community, Inc. According to the tree removal policy Lake Arrowhead Community, Inc. imposes on homeowners, “As of June 1, 2012, there will be a permit fee of $20.00 for tree cutting applications.” That policy further indicates, “Restrictions: No tree cutting will be approved for the purpose of increasing views of the lake, eliminating shady areas around a residence, expanding a back yard, or producing firewood. No unauthorized disturbance (e.g. cutting of trees) of Lake Arrowhead Community’s greenbelt will be allowed. Lake Arrowhead Community, Inc. imposes a fine of $250.00 per tree for every tree that is cut without the written approval of the community permit coordinator. If it cannot be determined the number of trees that were cut without written approval, the fine will be $2,500.00.”
Some Lake Arrowhead residents surmised that insofar as it was the intent of JLL, Jay Kerner and US Realty Partners, Inc. to level the peninsula and put in benches and firepits as part of the renovation project, Youngren was going to have to take out the trees to allow for the grading of the elevated mound that the trees sat on, as well as to reduce the hazard of embers from the firepits floating over to ignite the trees. In this way, certain Lake Arrowhead residents figured, JLL was willing to readily absorb the $4,250 cost of removing the 17 trees that would be likely to be imposed by Lake Arrowhead Community, Inc if the removal became an issue.
Bialecki at 5:20 p.m. on April 30 reacted to both of Nuñez’s emails earlier that day with another email. Bialecki told Nuñez , “The Save Our Forest Association and our mountain community appreciate your efforts to explain this egregious violation of county code. You state that ‘We are aware of the issue and are working with an applicant to achieve compliance.’ It seems from your response that clearly there was no required tree removal permit in place prior to yesterday’s destruction of 100+ year old native trees which are in extremely short numbers on the Lake Arrowhead Village Property. You further state that ‘However, they were not informed that tree removal Permits were required in connection with certain grading and building activities.’ If the applicant, Jay Kerner/US Realty Partners, Inc., ‘…worked closely with the county to obtain the necessary permits prior to beginning construction,’ would it not be incumbent upon the owner/developer to be aware of all permit requirements, especially in this case of removing multiple 100+ year old trees that have survived years of human intervention on the site, wildfires, bark beetle infestations, drought and climate change?” Bialecki’s missive goes on to state, “That the applicant is now, after the fact of tree demolition, working to comply by submitting the necessary tree removal permit application seems ludicrous. The trees are gone, the required permit was not applied foror approved ! The permit violation has occurred and the applicant should be held liable for damages. What is the point of having county code regulations in place if they are ignored, intentionally or by oversight, and there is no rigorous enforcement taking place subsequent to the violation?”
Bialecki requested that Nuñez “let our mountain community know if you, as chief of code enforcement, will be issuing a notice of permit violation to the property owner and what type of penalties will be imposed. To merely ‘…continue working with the applicant to resolve the issue’ is an unclear answer that at this time does not address the severity of the action taking place yesterday. Perhaps there can be some remediation by Jay Kerner of JLL (‘One of the 2025 World’s Most Ethical Companies’ as shown on their letterhead) to demonstrate to the mountain community that he has made a huge mistake with this unpermitted tree destruction and is willing to take responsibility by re-vegetating the area in a rigorous manner with mature native trees.”
Efforts by the Sentinel to obtain Kerner’s, JLL’s and US Realty Partners’ version of events by press time was unsuccessful.