By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

February 15 -- The thorny issue of Santa Monica hedge heights made national headlines in 2004 and helped launched Bobby Shriver's political career before a new law quelled hostilities between neighbors. Now the controversy has grown back, but the City Council is moving quickly to nip it in the bud.

After hearing scornful testimony and legal threats from residents fearful the City may cut exemptions for 900 homes with hedges, fences and other partitions higher than the 12 feet allowed by the 2005 ordinance, the council promised to leave the bushes and barriers alone.

"It will be made permanent," Council member Ken Genser told the standing room only crowd that packed the council chambers Tuesday night.

But the change cannot be made immediately, Genser said.

Instead, it would be brought back before the council by September 30 to give staff time to tweak several problem areas, which could include changing the way objectors receive relief and how to maintain a registry of exemptions.

While many thought the hatchet was buried with the September 2005 ordinance, which was widely seen as compromise, the controversy sprouted again after the council was forced to revisit the law Tuesday.

The law allows those who apply to keep their hedges at the current height and provides an appeals process for those who have problems with their neighbors' foliage and fences.

Known as an interim ordinance, the law -- which also raised the maximum height an additional four feet -- was set to expire March 31, unless council renewed it.

However, when residents -- from well-off doctors and lawyers to famous playwrights -- received notice their exemptions may be trimmed back over time, they organized, and some threatened to sue the City.

“There was a conclusion," said Aaron Mendelshon, one of several residents who said they felt the “grandfathered” hedges were permanent under the 2005 ordinance. "I don't know why (staff) brought it to you…they should be chastised and perhaps fired.

"Every one here has a couple billion dollars worth of property, and no one is going to stand for it," said Mendelshon, who's ex-wife, Leah Mendelshon organized neighbors by sending out hundreds of letters.

In the report presented by Planning Director Eileen Fogarty, staff suggested extending the temporary law until 2010 and taking action on a number of issues. They included phasing in compliance of front yard hedges, while eliminating side and rear hedge exemptions entirely.

In addition, Fogarty noted that the council may want to address the issue of the appeals process, which drains scores of hours from an already burdened planning commission and is heavily slanted against appellants.

"As you can see from many here, it is a very important issue," said Fogarty. She said the law was a balancing act between privacy and security concerns and quality of life issues.

While 900 residents registered to have their hedges and fences “grandfathered” because they were higher than the 12 feet allowed, 128 neighbors objected.

Of the 100 appeals that have been heard, 13 were approved, 31 were denied outright, and 56 were not approved but were allowed some relief, such as forcing the owner to trim their hedges.

Another 28 cases are currently on appeal and must go before the Planning Commission at a cost of $222 for each appellant, after they were denied by a city zoning administrator.

Throughout the process, a burden of proof is placed on the appellants, who often have a difficult time showing that their quality of life – from having sunlight and views reduced to cleaning up debris – has been affected enough to win a judgement.

"It's a very high standard to meet," Fogarty told the council. "I think there is some language (in the ordinance)…that a couple of words could be softened."

A handful of residents who had sought relief from the process said they were not satisfied with how the 2005 law was working.

Some even testified to having to contend with hedges between 30 and 50 feet tall, including one resident who brought pictures as proof.

"Right now I live in a canopy of trees and my quality of life has been permanently affected," Dr. Baldev Devgan told the council.

The council gave staff leeway to return with options that may include lowering the standard of evidence needed in appeals.

Shriver, the only council member to oppose the motion, said he was in favor of extending the ordinance on the condition that “grandfathered” residences would be permanently exempt. But he objected to lowering the standard of proof.

Several council members advocated giving permanent status to the nearly 800 residents who have received no complaints about their hedges and barriers.

"The council tried to strike some balance," Genser said of the 2005 ordinance. "We adopted (the law) as part of a political compromise.

"I think we need to…honor that promise, in effect," he said.

Still unresolved are how to measure and make sure hedges at “grandfathered” properties do not grow beyond what was first approved in 2005, which Fogarty said was a "serious problem."

"Grandparenting things that grow, certainly is a challenge," she said.