01-07-1997 - Tree Debris in Residential NeighborhoodsCity of West Covina
Memorandum
I
TO: City Council ti AGENDA
City) Manager
I ITEM NO. G-1
FROM: ,Jeffrey W. Collier ; DATE 1-7-97
Planning Director ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SUBJECT: TREE DEBRIS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
SUMMARY: At the October 15 and November 5, 1996, City Council meetings,
staff presented several options to help control tree debris in
residential neighborhoods., Staff explored different mechanisms
that are already in place and do not require City involvement, as
well as new options_ that could strengthen City regulations.' The
Council requested that the topic be continued for further
discussion.
BACKGROUND I
As stated in revi�ous reports, complaints regarding trees on residential r
P P p. � 9 9property
are typically considered civil matters and the City does not become directly
involved. The City will get involved in cases where the tree debris becomes so
offensive that it creates a public nuisance or if the tree is diseased. In earlier
staff reports, thel following existing mechanisms were discussed to address
residential tree debris:
• If the offending situation is injurious to the overall public health and safety,
the City may take action to abate it as a public nuisance.
• The offended property owner can file a private nuisance complaint in court.
• The complainant can trim the portion of the offending tree that overhangs the
property line {at his own expense, as long as -such pruning does not
permanently damage the tree.
• The complainant can contact an independent dispute resolution service in
attempt to mediate the problem.
DISCUSSION
Beyond the existing mechanisms, staff. has identified the following possible
options to further address this issue:
Public Education
Three of the options identified above involve the property owner acting on his/her
own (without City� involvement). Some residents may be reluctant to utilize
these options as,they do not want to offend their neighbor or jeopardize future
relations between households. Additionally, it may be difficult for some of the
City's older or less mobile residents to handle the problem on their own.
Each of these options, however, has the ability to be effective under the
appropriate circumstances. Some property owners would utilize these options,
but are not awarei of how to initiate them, what the limitations are, or what the
expected results may be. In this regard, the, City could develop an informational
pamphlet describing each of the available options, under what circumstances
they may be most effective, and what to do to make use of them.
While this option would not actually create any new enforcement mechanisms, it
could improve the jeffectiveness of existing mechanisms by making it easier for
property owners to take advantage of them.
ZACC\SFR PTSAH\TREES. Doc
Tree Debris 40
January T 1997 - Page 2
a
CODE AMENDMENT OPTIONS
In earlier discussions, the City C
ordinance regulations to address ti
has developed the following option;
1. Debris from Commercial and
Concerns were previously raised
overhanging, onto an adjacent resit
the Zoning Code does not incluc
single-family residential property t
the maintenance of landscaping
properties.
Municipal Code Sections 26-572
on commercial and multiple -far
Maintained in an orderly, fashion
where trees on a commercial
consistently dropping debris on ad
to be in violation of one of these ci
required to prune the trees to mitic
prosecution or civil abatement.
>uncil indicated an interest in pursuing new
ee debris in residential neighborhoods. Staff
ultiple-Family Residential Properties
related to trees on a commercial property
lential property on North Lang Avenue. While
e any provisions regarding debris from one
another, there are provisions that relate to
m commercial and multiple -family residential
ind 26-515 require that all landscaped areas
ily residential properties, respectively, be
and free of debris and litter. In a situation
or multiple -family residential. property are
)ining properties, the property could be found
de sections. The owners, therefore, could be
ate the debris problem or would face criminal
If a code amendment is pursued, ithese sections of the Zoning Code could be
modified .to more directly address the issue of tree debris.
2. Tree Trimming
Another option would be to place
overhanging onto an abutting pro
Property•
msibility on a property owner to trim trees
if requested to do so by the owner of that
In talking with the property owners who appeared at the October 15th Council
meeting and visiting the sites discussed, it was found. that the majority. of the
..problems were caused by trees that were directly overhanging onto side or rear
yards. These areas are particularly sensitive to debris problems since debris
tends to get trapped in patio and garden areas, and on the roofs of homes.
Property owners currently have t
land, but they must either do the w
often necessary in the case of larc
responsibility for trimming a tree cl
tree. In addition, the owner of th
entire tree to ensure that the tree
Depending on the size, variety,
anywhere from $100 to $350 or mi
can take anywhere from one
circumstances.
Even in the limited scope props
result in a significant number of
with .many mature residential
residential properties in West
adjoining'properties. Staff is un�
of ordinance provision.
e 'right to trim trees overhanging onto their
,rk themselves or hire a tree trimmer (which is
e trees). Through this type of ordinance, the
uld be more fairly placed on the owner of the
tree would have the opportunity to trim the
is.balanced and is not susceptible to falling.
and location of the tree, it typically costs
re per tree to hire a trimmer. Trimming a tree
lour to several days depending on the
>ed, it should be noted that this ordinance could
requests for code enforcement action. As a city
neighborhoods, there are a large number of
Covina that have trees which overhang onto
aware of any other city that has adopted this type
Z:\CC\SFRPTSAH\TREES. DOC
Tree Debris • Ii
January 7. 1997 - Page 3 I
f
3. Cleaning Up Leaf Debris
1
In previous discussions on this matter, interest has been expressed in an
ordinance that would essentially make property owners responsible for cleaning
up leaves from their trees that fall or blow onto adjoining properties. Compared
to a tree trimming regulation such; as that described above, "clean-up"
regulations would be considerably more difficult and cumbersome to administer.
Reasons for this, include (1) the necessity to obtain permission for the offending
property owner to go onto the offended property owner's lot to clean up fallen
leaves, and (2)� determining the point at which an offensive situation has
occurred (i.e. how many fallen leaves create an offense).
As an alternative to establishing specific requirements for cleaning up fallen
leaves, it may be possible to establish ordinance provisions that simply require
property owners `to maintain trees on their property and take necessary actions
to control fallen leaves. This more general standard would avoid the complicated
task of specifying when an offending situation occurred and how it must be
remedied. Rather, when the City received a complaint regarding a problematic
situation, it would provide code enforcement staff with an ordinance they could
use in . seeking compliance from an offending property owner to resolve the
problem.
Regardless of how a "clean-up" ordinance may be constructed', it would present
unique administrative challenges. Dealing with two sets of residential property
owners can become very complex and time consuming. From a legal
perspective, additional problems could arise as the City has no power to require
that a property owner allow a neighboring property owner onto his property to
clean up vegetative debris. The City's;only enforcement mechanism to allow
one neighbor onto another's property would be to issue a criminal warning or
citation' against the owner of the property where.the debris is located.
Staff has contacted both the League of -California Cities and the State Office of
Planning and Research in an attempt to locate similar municipal ordinances;
however, staff has been unable to locate; any jurisdictions with provisions specific
to residential tree, debris. The City Attorney, however, has located an ordinance
from the City of Villa Park pertaining to trees abutting public property that could
be used as a basis for developing an ordinance pertaining to private property
If the Council is i 1 terested in pursuing a code amendment, the matter should be
referred to.the Planning Commission with appropriate direction.
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report and provide
any appropriate direction to staff.
I
Anne D. Hill
Planning Assistant
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:
Jeffre . Collier
PlanAing Director
ZACC\SFRPTSAH\TREES. DOC
City of West Covina
Memorandum
TO: City Council AGEty �IDA
CiManager
ITEM NO. r,_1
FROM: Jeffrey W. Collier DATE 11-5-96
PIIanning Director ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SUBJECT: TREE DEBRIS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
I
SUMMARY: On October 15, 1996, the City Council reviewed a report regarding
this issue and requested that additional information be provided
regarding options that can be pursued to address tree debris in
residential neighborhoods.
The issue of leaves and vegetative debris falling or blowing from private
residential property onto another is a source of annoyance to property owners.
Some property ;owners feel they are unfairly Out upon by having to clean up
debris that they were not responsible for producing.
In the staff report dated October 15, 1996, information was provided regarding
options available to homeowners to address this problem (see attached).
Generally, the report indicated that this type of problem is, in most cases, a civil
issue that the City is not directly involved in. Cases where the City could be
involved are limited to where the problem is a public nuisance or the offending
tree is diseased. Where the problem is of a lesser magnitude, mediation
between property owners through a dispute resolution service was identified as
a possible solution. The Council, however, requested that further consideration
be given to other approaches.
DISCUSSION
In. addition to the options identified in the previous staff report, staff has
identified the following options for consideration.
Debris from Commercial and Multiple -Family Residential Properties
One of the concerns raised at the October 15th Council meeting related to trees
on a commercial property overhanging onto an adjacent residential property on
North Lang Avenue. While the Zoning Code does not include any provisions
regarding debris from one single-family residential property to another, there are
provisions that relate to the maintenance of landscaping on commercial and
multiple -family residential properties.
Municipal Code Sections 26-572 and 26-515 require that all landscape areas on
commercial and multiple -family residential properties, respectively, be
maintained in an orderly fashion and free of debris and litter. In a situation
where trees on a, commercial or multiple -family residential property are
consistently dropping debris on adjoining properties, the property could be found
to be in violation, of one of these code sections. The owners could therefore be
required to prune the trees to mitigate the debris problem.
Public Education
In the previous report, three options were identified that involved the property
owner acting on 'his/her own (without City involvement). These were (1) filing a
private nuisance complaint in court, (2) trimming overhanging trees at his/her
own expense as permitted under case law, or (3) attempting to mediate the
problem through', a dispute resolution service. Each of these options has the
ability to be effective under the appropriate circumstances.
Z:\CC\SFRPTSDM\TREES.DOC
Tree Debris •
November 5, 1996 - Page 2
0
Some property owners, however, may be reluctant to utilize any of these options
since they may not know how tol go about doing it, what the limitations are, or
what the expected result may be. In this regard, the City could develop an
informational pamphlet or booklet describing the available options, under what
circumstances they may be most'effective, and what to do to make use of them.
This would be particularly instructive with respect to how to file a simple small
claims case without having to hire an attorney.
While this option would not actually create any new enforcement mechanisms, it
could improve the effectiveness of existing mechanisms by making it easier for
property owners to take advantage of them.
Munici
In the previous report, it was indicated that it would be possible to adopt an
ordinance generally making property owners responsible for debris produced by
trees on their property. A caution was included, however, indicating that this.
type of ordinance could present significant enforcement problems, both in terms
of how it would be enforced and the demands it would place on current code
enforcement resources.
Staff has since consulted with the League of California Cities and the State
Office of Planning and Research to determine if other cities have existing
ordinances regarding this issue. Each of these agencies have extensive
resources regarding municipal ordinances; however, these resources are not
completely exhaustive.
At this time, only the City of Bakersfield has been found to have. an ordinance
touching upon the issue of tree debris. Basically, the Bakersfield ordinance
prohibits three species of trees th rloughout the city because of their propensity to
create debris problems. These are female cottonwood trees, fruiting varieties of
mulberrytrees, and tree of heaven. Additionally, the ordinance makes it the
responsibility of the property owner to keep trees on their property trimmed so as
not to be a visual or -physical impediment to travel on streets and sidewalks.
These provisions, however, are not directly related to cleaning up tree debris.
Despite the lack of ordinances in other cities, there may p be other options for
constructing an ordinance regarding tree debris. As previously indicated,
though, staff would caution against an ordinance that made a property owner
responsible for cleaning up all tree debris falling onto adjoining properties
because of the complexities and complications of enforcing such a requirement.
One option that may be more viable would be to place the responsibility on the
property owner to trim trees overhanging onto an abutting property if requested
to do so by the owner of that property. This requirement could be limited to
exclude trees in the front setback area, including City -maintained street trees
that are sometimes located on private property.
In talking with the property owners who appeared at the October 15th Council
meeting and visiting the sites discussed, it was found that the majority of the
problems were caused by trees that were directly overhanging onto side or rear
yards. These areas are particularly sensitive to debris problems since debris
tends to get trapped in patio and garden areas, and on the roofs of homes.
I
Property owners currently have the right to trim trees overhanging onto their
properties, but they must either duo the work themselves or hire a tree trimmer
(which is often necessary in the I case of large trees). Through this type of
ordinance, the responsibility for trimming the tree could be more fairly placed on
the owner of the tree. (
Z:\CC\SFRPTSDM\TREES2.DOC
I
Tree Debris •
November 5. 1996 - Page 3
11
Requiring that overhanging trees be trimmed would not likely pose the same
degree of enforcement difficulties that a "general clean-up" ordinance would
present. Ins I e cases, though, it would require that arrangements be made for
the adjoining property owner to grant access for the tree to be trimmed. Another
consideration is that a large proportion of all residential properties in West
Covina have on'e or more trees that overhang onto adjoining properties. Even in
the limited scope proposed, this ordinance could result in a large number of
requests for code enforcement action.
While this i
evaluation v
Council is i
Planning Cc
Staff recommer
any appropriate
lance option would initially seem feasible, further study and
J be needed before any final decisions could be made. If the
asted in pursuing this, the matter should be referred to the
ssion.
Is that the City Council receive and file this report and provide
Direction to staff.
D AND APPROVED BY:
y W. Colli
ing Direct
Z:\CC\SFRPTSDM\TREES2.DOC
City Of Wmt Covina
Memorandum
TO: City Council AGENDA
City Manager
ITEM NO. r_1
FROM: Jeffrey W. Collier DATE---IL-1 L-0
Planning Director ®PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
I
SUBJECT: TREE DEBRIS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS
SUMMARY: At the City Council meeting of September 17, 1996,
Councilmember Manners requested that staff examine the issue of
tree debris that impact adjoining private properties in residential
neighborhoods. This report outlines the available options to
address this issue.
BACKGROUND
The issue of leaves and vegetative debris falling or blowing from private
residential property onto another is a source of annoyance to property owners.
Some property owners feel they are unfairly put upon by having to clean up
debris that they were. not responsible for producing. In some cases, the
problems may be more serious. There are some options available to address
this issue. There are more Clear cut solutions for serious situations that could
pose a health and safety problem. As explained in this report, attempting to
assume greater enforcement authority over private property would be
problematic and may be of questionable benefit. A more viable option may be
placing an emphasis on mediation between property owners through a dispute
resolution service.
DISCUSSION
Provided below is a discussion of the enforcement mechanisms that exist or
could be adopted to address the issue of leaves and debris blowing onto
adjoining properties.
Public Nuisance
Should leaves and debris accumulate on private property to the point that it is
considered a public nuisance, the City may take action to abate the nuisance. It
is important to note that, in legal terms, a "public nuisance" would be a
considerably more significant problem than simply leaves blowing onto an
adjoining property. Basically, a nuisance requires that the offending situation be
injurious to overall health and. safety. To be considered a public nuisance, the
situation must be one that affects an entire neighborhood or community, or any
considerable number of persons.
Section-15-200 et. seq. of the Municipal Code provides procedures for abating
public nuisance situations. The fist line of responsibility for abating a public
nuisance falls upon the owner of the property from which the nuisance
emanates. In this case, clean up may also be on a neighboring property, which
requires consent or more formal. access. It is staffs impression that public
nuisance situations, such as tree debris on sidewalks, are already part of the
abatement process.
Private Nuisance
In addition to public nuisances, the! California Civil Code also makes provisions
for a person .to bring a civil action i against another party where that party was
responsible for creating a "private! nuisance" on their property. Generally, a
private nuisance need only be injurious to a particular property, whereas a public
nuisance is one that affects a larger�area or number of people.
Z:\CC\SFRPTSDM\TREES. DOC
Tree Debris
October 15. 1996 - Vae 2
is
The advantage of this option is that the action could be brought against the
owner of an offending tree, and the threshold for being considered a private
nuisance is not generally as high as a public nuisance. The disadvantage is that
the offending situation must still be at the level of a civil nuisance. It also
requires the time and expense of a property owner filing for a civil action in court;
however, it is possible that a small claims court action could be pursued.
In this regard, the Senior Citizens Center has available a Legal Assurance
Program. For no charge, seniors can have a brief consultation with an attorney
regarding legal matters. This service could be used by seniors to evaluate
whether and how they should pursue a private nuisance complaint.
Municipal Code 'Sections 24-20 and 26-414 make it the responsibility of property
owners to treat or remove diseased or insect -infested trees, etc. If the source of
a debris problem is a diseased tree, these code sections could be used as an
enforcement mechanism. If there is a question as to whether a tree is actually
diseased, however, the(tree must first examined by a qualified plant pathologist.
Since diseased ',trees are not a very common occurrence, this code provision
would only have application in a small number of cases.
Trimming Overhanging Trees
In a case where a tree overhangs onto an adjoining property, the owner of the
adjoining property may trim the tree from his or her property to remove
overhanging limbs and branches. This type of action would probably reduce the
amount of blown leaves and debris, but might not entirely eliminate it. Property
owners that elect to trim a neighboring tree are subject to the "rule of reason,"
and may not trim the tree (or cut its roots) in a way that would damage the tree's
health.
New Municipal Code Provisions
In order to go beyond the limited enforcement mechanisms described above and
make property owners responsible in general for cleaning up leaves and debris
on adjoining properties (where those situations do not constitute a nuisance),
additional ordinance requirements would have to be adopted. The City Attorney
has indicated that such an ordinance probably could be developed; however,
there are some shortcomings to doing this.
One significant problem with a "general clean-up" ordinance is that it would pose
significant enforcement problems. While the City can use its police powers to go
onto private property to rectify a public nuisance, the City has no power to
compel one property owner to allow another owner onto his/her property to clean
up debris. Should this occur with a clean-up ordinance requirement, the City's
only other enforcement alternative would be to issue a criminal warning or
citation against the owner of the property on which the debris existed.
In addition, an ordinance requiring clean-up of debris in non -nuisance situations
could have the potential to generate a large number of complaints. Combined
with the complexity of working with two sets of property owners to achieve
compliance, this could prove to be very taxing on code enforcement resources.
Another option would be to adopt a minimum setback for trees, with the rationale
being that trees too close to the property line are the largest cause of leaves
falling or blowing onto an adjoining property. Staff would also advise against this
option for the reasons that (1) it would create thousands of "nonconforming
trees;" (2) it would be extremely difficult to identify and police the planting of new
Z:\CC\SFRPTS DM\TRIEES. DOC
Tree Debris
October 15. 1996 - Pa 3
trees within the setback area; and (3) it would only have limited effectiveness in
addressing the underlying problem.
With respect to both options, staff is unaware of any other cities that have
adopted such ordinance provisions.
Dispute Resolution Service
In many cases where one property owner is aggrieved by leaves and debris from
another property, at least part of the problem may be the reluctance of one
owner to approach the offending owner regarding a solution. In such cases,
mediation of the problem between the two parties may be the most efficient and
effective solution.
The City currently participates in a dispute resolution program funded by the
County of Los Angeles. For West Covina residents, this service can be provided
by groups such as the Claremont Dispute Resolution Center (see attached
information). The mediation offered by the service is not legally binding. While
mediation may not be effective in highly contentious situations, in many cases
mediation through a professional dispute resolution service could provide the
simplest and least expensive solution to the problem.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file this report and provide
any appropriate direction to staff.
41
Douo6s N. Mclsaac
PrirXipal Planner
EWED A D APPROVED BY:
W. Collier
nq Director
Z:\CC\SFRPTSDM\TREES. DOC
0
What is
.,,,The:.Claremont. Dispute
Resolution Center?
In 1987, a group of professionals in the
fields of education, the clergy, union,
management, law, and finance, having
discussed the frustrations and expense
1, of litigation, ' and the successes each
had experienced in mediating disputes,
decided to create the Claremont
Dispute Resolution Center (CDRC).
That group of people, now the CDRC
Board and its Executive Director,
applied for funding from Los Angeles
County to supplement the • voluntary
time and donations by themselves and
others. CDRC.was granted .the funds
and is',.now:..on its : way toward
furnishing low-cost, effective
alternative dispute resolution services
to our communities.
• TYPES OF Dlsi)u,rE CASTES
... Discrimination
... LandlordjTenant
... Consumer/Merchant
... Neighbor/Neighbor
Employer/Employee
Auto. Accident':.;
Domestic & Family
... Business :....
... Other
1•.r,3 I i:'j:�• .r�wi'•`;'"}r�;r. rS 't� 11} �1 �'tt �t if 1:1C.j
t f t ' L VR
V�hv Should You Mediate Your
HOW Does Dispute Through CDRC?
.
Mediation Work? Conldence/C;onfidentiahty
In mediation, all matters
discussed are kept confidential.'',.
Mediation, simply put, is the process.QuidService/Settlement ,
by which an impartial third person, the - Most sessions. will, be scheduled
mediator, assists the parties themselves within a few days.
in reaching a reconciliation, settlement, - Most disputes are settled in
or other understanding. one session.
The mediator helps the parties to
move from positions of • anger and
mistrust to an objective analysis of the
points in conflict.
Further,.the mediator helps the parties
take into account mutual!•needs and
goals in fashioning an agreement,which
will meet those needs. And, since the
agreement is based on mutual goals,
the agreement paves the way for better
relations in the future..
Finally, since the resolution comes
from the parties themselves, there is a
sense of 'ownership" in that resolution
by the parties.
Evening hours arranged by
appointment. only. ;
Effectiveness
Greater, than. 90%of the
disputes brought to mediation are
settled.
- Mediated settlements are
almost universally performed as agreed:..
to.
Satisfaction
- The parties themselves
determine the terms . of settlement.
- Problem -solving, future
orientation. 4
L°w Cass
- Sliding -scale ; fees based; on
income. No cost to. those who' cannot
afford to pay.
--------------- ---------- -- - - - - ---,
Funded by the County. of'r
Los Angeles from the
Dispute Resolution Program
Special Fund j
I
------------------------------
y
,
r
, . Mediation.' hieation aId !
the Nature of -conflict.
A t I
Conflictis inevitable in our complex
relations. We cannot possibly plan for
every conceivable event which might
Tf1G C�c3iG1i10i1t Dispute
impact on our contracts, business
relationships, and personal lives. We
Resolution Center
cannot know that other person well
enough to predict how he or she will
'rl1e goal, of the Claremont Dispute
respond to the expected, let alone the
Resolution Center is to, ...
unexpected event.
furnish a fair, humane and reasonable
As they resort to litigation to deal with
alternative to the courts and the
a dispute, the parties take adversarial
formal litigation system. Through the
positions. Conflicts are heightened, as
use of certified volunteers and paid
each attempts to defeat the other..
staff, CDRC will .assist individuals,
Eventually. one party will "win", the
business and , corporations,
other lose. 1'he case terminates - and
organizations, and municipal entities in
so, too, the relationship terminates,
resolving disputes by utilizing
mediation, factfinding and arbitration.
In mediation,. however, the conflicts
It is our goal to relieve the burdens of
are .examined : in': such"a. ..:way as to
the court system and foster the use of
encourage the parties :themselves . to
such; alternatives in the communities
seek creative 'ways to ,resolve the
we serve:
conflicts and preserve the parties'
future.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS HOURS: 10 A.M. TO S P.M.
Ronald Leos, Esq. Monday -Friday .
President
Delores Kelley, Ph.D. Jerry Pearson, J.D.
vice -President Executive Director
r1. K; Kelley; I'h.D.
Secretnry1'reosurai
sr
f
�P�trlckQ31i1anj;Ph. D.
Azike Ntephe, Esq: A
Laura Roach
CLMEMONT DISPUTE
RESOLUTION CENTER
Altemative Mspute
Resolution through
74 ^naw,wg Myatt
JERRV PEARSON, J.D.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
BUSINESS OFFICE:
333 W. FOOTHILL BLVD.
GLENDORA, CA. 91741
(818) 963-3969
FIELD OFFICES:
CLAREMONT
114 N. INDIAN HILL BLVD., SUITE C
CLAREMONT, CA. 91711
(909) 625-(WW
.. POMONA
401 S: MAIN, SUITE 20s
POMONA. CA. 91766
ON)) 623-2351
4�t'(►�
652�8 sIT' 1�
u 1�: , b�
WESTCOVINA, CA.'91790
(818) 3374=6