Small percentage of hedge cases prompting city mandated trims
CITYWIDE — Overgrown Bamboo and Italian cypress trees continue to pose problems for residents, but an ordinance passed by City Hall last year seems to be providing some relief in the form of a quick trim.
Of the 105 complaints filed by residents regarding hedges, fences or walls deemed too tall under the law, the majority — 58 percent — were resolved by requiring the property owner to conduct basic maintenance and hedge trimming, according to a progress report by the Planning and Community Development Department.
City staff believes the efforts have mitigated many of the concerns expressed by those who complained of obstructed access, debris, increased allergies and restriction to natural light.
The height of hedges and fences has been a controversial issue in the city over the last few years, with some dubbing the era the “Hedge Wars.” The issue was so heated that it shook-up Santa Monica’s last election for City Council and galvanized several neighborhood groups.
Anger boiled over in 2004 when a 57-year-old hedge law was revisited for one of the first times in more than half a century, drawing international headlines when City Hall directed 200 households to cut their hedges or face a $25,000-a-day fine.
The notices were sent out over Thanksgiving weekend. Many residents were outraged, including Councilman Bobby Shriver, a hedge violator, who was upset with the way city staff notified residents. He subsequently ran for office to help change how City Hall interacts with the public.
From the furor came a new ordinance, passed on Oct. 25, 2005, which requires residents to maintain the 42-inch height limit for any new front yard hedge installation, while side-and rear-yard enclosure limits are allowed to stand 12 feet — an increase of four feet. There are also rules allowing some hedges, fences and walls that exceed the limit to remain, known as “grandparenting.”
In an interview Thursday, Shriver said the recent report by staff seems to show that the ordinance is providing some relief, but he remained concerned by the number of appeals filed.
“I never thought this problem could be solved with one ordinance,” Shriver said. “There are those who have complained about the process and if the law needs adjustment, I’m sure the council will adjust it. We want a workable law that is fair.”
A problem with the ordinance that staff identified in its report was enforcement, and found that clarification was needed in regards to heights allowed for hedges adjacent to an alley.
“It is unclear if the unlimited height is intended to apply to the entire area contained within required rear yard setback adjacent to an alley, or more precisely those portions of a hedge immediately adjacent to an alley,” the staff report said. “At present, it is the depth of a required rear or side yard adjacent to an alley that establishes the area when an unlimited hedge height is allowed.”
The report also noted that demonstrating that a fence, wall or hedge was constructed after the ordinance was put into effect would be “difficult for City Hall to prove and enforce.”
“It remains uncertain how many nonconforming fences, walls and hedges may have been established since the ordinance was adopted,” the report said.
Furthermore, while many complaints were resolved, 31 percent were denied because of a lack of evidence that the hedge or fence in question was causing problems for the complainant, the report said.
On only a few occasions did complainants provide proof in the form of reports from arborists, doctors or plumbers that the overgrown hedges or high-fences contributed to poor air-circulation, required greater electricity use to heat a home or brighten a room, clogged drains or increased complications with allergies. Very few submitted bills showed the cost of increased electricity use or maintenance to structures damaged by the growth of hedges, the report said.
In just 13 percent of the cases was a hedge or fence ordered to be trimmed or altered significantly.
Twenty-eight appeals were filed, at a cost of $222.35 each. The Planning Commission is reviewing those appeals and it is anticipated that a special meeting will be required and held in April or May to consider the appeals.
After reviewing complaints from residents about the process of notifying code enforcement about an illegal hedge, city staff suggested the council could proceed with no change to the process, or wave the appeal fee, which could lead to more appeals being filed.
The council could also decide to not regulate hedge heights, except as necessary to comply with established safety standards.
Councilman Kevin McKeown said he would consider waiving the appeals fee and is concerned about reports that neighbors felt their complaints went unheard.
“I support waiving the appeals fee,” McKeown said. “I recognize this may cost money and time to resolve, but we were rectifying 50 years of non-enforcement and I think we owe it to the community to do it right.”
“We were rectifying 50 years of non-enforcement and I think we owe it to the community to do it right.” — KEVIN MCKEOWN City Councilman
Councilman Ken Genser said he has received complaints from residents about the process, but feels the ordinance is strong, except for the issue dealing with hedges adjacent to alleys. Genser hopes the council can address this soon.
Genser said the number of complaints filed may be skewed because “handfuls” of residents told him they didn’t file because they had no faith in the system.
“You have to appeal. That’s the process,” Genser said. “You may not be happy with the decisions (made by staff), but you never know what will happen when the Planning Commission reviews it. They may have another view.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 24, 2006. Read the original PDF.