San Clemente Has Ax to Grind on Trees

Georginia and Dave Mudd have a wonderful view from the terrace of their San Clemente home: lush green fairways just a few yards away, shimmering blue sea in the distance.

But in the yard across the street, right smack in the middle of their view, stands a big old pine tree, 50 or 60 feet tall. The Mudds call it “The Monster.” They want it removed, as do other neighbors, but the owner has refused to cut it down.

“That tree is 40 or 50 years old,” said Ray Talarico, the owner. “It was here before they were. They just want another $10,000 of view. Well, I’m not going to cut it down.”

After the November election, Talarico may have no choice. An initiative on the ballot would prohibit trees, shrubs and bushes taller than 15 feet or the highest point of the property’s roof line, whichever is higher, if they block someone else’s view of the ocean or hills. The City Council would have to give its approval in each case.

Talarico, in other words, could be forced to trim The Monster or cut it down. And if the council gives its OK, that is exactly what they will do, Georginia Mudd said.

“Wouldn’t this (view) be nicer if the damn tree weren’t in the way?” Georginia Mudd asked, standing on the balcony of the Calle del Cerrito home she and her husband bought when they moved from Upland seven years ago. “Trees are beautiful, as long as you keep them trimmed. But this tree just keeps growing and spreading. It is ruining our view.”

Hundreds, if not thousands, of residents of this hilly, rapidly growing city of 32,000 could lodge similar complaints if the measure passes. And some trees and shrubs would have to come down, although the city probably would have to compensate owners whose vegetation previously had been legal, City Attorney Jeff Oderman said.

“People move to San Clemente for ocean views,” said the ordinance’s author, C. L. (Curly) Snider, who was involved in a successful campaign last fall to limit growth in the city.

“If a tree ruins your view, it ruins your investment. . . . It’s like going to a ballgame, and there’s an umbrella blocking out your view of the game. . . . Who can afford to pay for something they can’t see?”

Snider, 51, said an ocean view in San Clemente is worth $50,000. Local real estate agents say the premium that a homebuyer must pay for a view is from $10,000 to $40,000, depending on the general value of the neighborhood.

“This is a way to beautify San Clemente,” said Snider, who owns a packaging supply company. “If they are properly maintained and trimmed, trees would enhance the city. They wouldn’t be a problem.”

Snider is not a man whose view can be trifled with lightly. When a couple of recalcitrant palm trees on his neighbor’s property got in the way a few years ago, and the neighbor told Snider he would have to pay to have them trimmed, Snider upped the ante: He bought the house for $137,500.

Down came the palm trees, and down came a hedge “that would have blocked my view if it had kept growing,” Snider said.

He rented the house out for a couple of years, then sold it to the tenant. “He respects my view,” Snider said.

Letter Spurred Action

What finally spurred Snider to fight for a city law protecting views, however, was a letter published a few years ago in a local newspaper saying San Clemente was ugly because it didn’t have lots of trees like Monterey or La Jolla.

“I was offended,” Snider said. “In Monterey or La Jolla, there have always been lots of trees. San Clemente was all grazing land; there’s not a natural tree here. Our natural resource is the views. . . . Lots of cities have ordinances protecting trees. If you can protect the trees, there’s no reason why you can’t protect the views from those trees.”

In 1984, the City Council turned down Snider’s request to put the question of trees versus views to the people of San Clemente. So Snider began a petition drive to place it on the ballot, and by January, 1985, he had garnered about 2,000 signatures, more than the required 10% of the city’s registered voters. The council had to put it on this year’s November ballot.

If the measure passes, San Clemente would have the toughest tree restriction ordinance in the state, and the only one in Southern California. A handful of Bay Area cities--Belvedere, Tiburon and Sausalito--have adopted binding arbitration procedures to settle tree disputes, but in those cities it is usually the complainant who must foot the bill for pruning or cutting down the offending tree. In San Clemente, the tree owner would have to pay all costs, once the City Council orders the work done after a public hearing during which both sides would be able to argue their cases.

Compensation for Owners

But Oderman believes that the City Council would have to compensate the owners of trees and shrubs that suddenly became illegal on the date that the law would pass. For example, if the council found that a 40-foot-tall tree on Nov. 4 was blocking a view and should be cut down, it would have to compensate the owner.

The city attorney said that he has no idea how much the city would have to pay. Mature boxed trees, like those planted at shopping centers, can cost several hundred or even a few thousand dollars at nurseries. “But a lot of trees aren’t replaceable,” Oderman said. “Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.”

Even if the council found that a tree was illegally blocking someone’s view, it could decide not to have it cut down if it believed that the compensation to the owner was too much, Oderman said.

Snider said the city attorney’s opinion, which will be sent out to voters as an impartial analysis of the ordinance, is hogwash.

“He’s not impartial, he’s biased on the side of the council majority (which opposes the ordinance),” Snider said. “This is a nuisance ordinance. They have weed abatement, and the same thing can apply for trees. Nothing is exempt.”

Says Analysis Is Fair

Oderman maintains that his analysis is fair. “I don’t think there are any inaccuracies. . . . I raise only one issue--compensation with existing trees. It’s so clear-cut, no one can really argue about it. . . . I don’t think the courts would allow a city to simply classify something as a nuisance and thereby avoid paying just compensation. They would say, ‘Fine, you can call it a nuisance, but you still have to pay.’ ”

Oderman acknowledges that a city has the right to limit the height of trees to preserve views, just as it may limit the height of buildings or antennas. But, he said, “it’s pretty far out on the fringes of what cities have done historically.”

City Councilman Robert D. Limberg opposes the ordinance. “This is a poor law,” he said. “It is a confrontational kind of law . . . proposing the taking of private property. . . . The right way to do this is between neighbors, or within neighborhood associations. People have to do something else in their lives besides looking to government to solve all their problems.”

Snider agrees that tree disputes are best handled between neighbors. But, he said, “what it comes down to is to resolve . . . where neighbors are at a standoff. Sure, I imagine (the ordinance) could allow someone to complain about a tree just out of spite. But by the same token, you have people who grow spite trees . . and won’t trim them.”