Although not rising to the epic proportions of Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Dickens’s Bleak House, the long legal battle between Sunnyvale neighbors over a private property rights issue with an environmental twist that was concluded last week has important repercussions for the principles that govern California urban life and may bring a change in state law.
Briefly, the case centers on couple Richard Treanor and Carolynn Bissett and their neighbor Mark Vargas. Treanor and Bissett planted redwood trees along the border of their property in 1997-99 that are now 20-40 feet high. In 2001, Vargas installed solar panels in the roof of his home. The redwoods shaded a portion of the panels and Vargas, claiming the shade adversely affected his ability to generate electricity, asked Treanor and Bissett to cut down the trees, later moderated to trimming them to a shorter height, both of which they refused to do. This led to several years of attempted mediation and finally a complaint filed by Vargas claiming the trees violated California’s rarely invoked 1978 Solar Shade Control Act. The court agreed and ordered Treanor and Bissett to remove or alter two of the trees so that less than 10% of the panels are shaded at any one time, under a $1,000-a-day penalty for non-compliance. After spending $37,000 on legal bills, the couple gave up and, last week, chopped down the “offending” trees.
Both parties claim credentials as environmentalists and seem to be reasonable people, so how does something like this happen? Does anyone actually “win” a case like this? Is Vargas’s win a Pyrrhic victory? Whatever your opinion, the case has inspired State Senator Joe Simitian to introduce a bill that would end the blanket legal preference given to solar panels under the 1978 act. Put very simply, the proposed new law will favor whoever was first. If, as in this case, the trees were there first and a neighbor comes along and installs solar panels, the solar neighbor cannot force the destruction of the trees. If the solar panels were installed first, then neighbors cannot plant trees that shade them.
This seems reasonable and fair to me. In fact, it points toward a legal principle that should be applicable to many such situations. For instance, if you live in a neighborhood of single-story homes, and someone comes along and buys the house next door, they shouldn’t be able to build a mini-skyscraper on top of it, blocking everyone else’s view of the sky and giving them a bird’s-eye platform to violate your privacy. The list could go on and on.
In this case, Vargas may have had the law on his side, but he was wrong. Simitian’s bill should become the new law and make it official.
I agree that if the trees were there first, they need to stay. I wonder if after winning this battle, Vargas will at some point move away while the Treanors stay put, sans two trees they wanted to keep. In this case, I do not agree with Vargas and he had some nerve putting in solar panels when he knew there would be a shade issue, and then demand that the neighbors accommodate his misguided decision.
Jack, as much as I agree with you about the whole single-story vs skyscraper scenario I doubt the city will ever implement such restrictions. For too many people it makes more financial sense to add on to the home they already own than to move to a larger one. This is an issue that needs attention so that a happy medium can be struck. I know I would be very unhappy if any of my surrounding neighbors decided to build up rather than out.
John makes some very good points in post #1. When the city smells money, trees don’t stand a chance.
Existing mature trees should stay. However when planting new trees or planning a new housing project trees that don’t interfere with solar panels should be planted.
…the couple gave up and, last week, chopped down the “offending” trees.
They did not chop down the trees. They trimmed the tops back.
Someone in the letter section of the Mercury News (amazingly, every once in a while the Mercury does print a reasonable letter) pointed out that good neighbors do not plant a row of trees that grow hundreds of feet in the air next to the property line.
Just put the panels on a pole. There are obviously trees in place to obscure the blighted view.
I don’t think tall trees along a property line is a bad thing. It depends on the situation.
With redwoods, topping them is not an aesthtically pleasing option. And they will sprout again and start growing upward. They will never have the graceful natural form that they had before being topped, and it will be a periodic task to keep these trees from shading the solar panels going forward. I would send the bills for continued trimming straight to Mr. Vargas.
The City of San Jose makes it extremely difficult to remove trees on private property, particularly if you’re just a lowly homeowner. If, however you are a developer and the City gets a whiff of a chance at more tax revenue, all of a sudden trees aren’t so important any more.
I recently questioned the City Planner who was in charge of a project that involved the remodeling of a commercial building. Three very large Pine trees were removed and I was wondering what the rationale had been for the City to allow this. Her response was that the developer was going to install solar panels on the roof.
So here’s a case in which the trees preceded the solar panels but that didn’t matter to our “green” City. But the amazing thing was that these trees were on the North side of the building and would not have interfered with the efficiency of the solar panels.
This is a technical detail that is evidently beyond the grasp of our City’s crack Planning Department.
“Activists ‘R Us hotline, this is Susie Moonunit, how may I help you?”
Caller: “Hi Ms. Moonunit, I’ve got a code red and I need your best activists dispatched at once to my neighborhood.”
Ms. Moonunit: “Now take a cleansing breath and describe the situation on the ground.”
Caller: “Ok. Ok. This developer is threatening to clear a vacant lot in my neighborhood that has old growth juniper bushes on it and..”
Ms. Moonunit: “Oh wow. Please have a listen to our Andean flute hold music while I take a quick look in my activist database…”
Ms. Moonunit: “Unfortunately all our best young environmental justice activists are currently in the trees in Berkeley.”
Caller: “Oh no that just won’t do. Can’t you please, please do something?”
Ms. Moonunit: “Well, since building 25 burned down, we have heaps of young preservation justice activists in stock…”
Caller: “Do they do anything but whine Ms Moonunit? This situation calls for on the ground action. What else can be done Ms Moonunit?”
Ms. Moonunit: “Wait.. I’ve think I’ve got it… A young journalist justice social justice activist.. I’m sorry did I just say justice twice? Anyway I just met a guy that knows 50 leather-clad bikers who can sit on their harleys and make them roar like they have jet engines inside them. Just meet the bikers in front of the vacant lot with 2 coolers of beer and plenty of carbon offsets for the harleys that roar like they have jet engines inside them.”
Caller: “Oh Ms. Moonunit, how can I ever thank you?”
Ms. Moonunit: “Don’t thank me. Just kneel on your hemp prayer rug while facing Tennessee tomorrow morning and thank the messiah.”
A California Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens)is the tallest growing tree in the world, reaching up to 379 feet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia
Even without solar panels I would be upset if a neighbor planted those on my property line. What if my thriving garden plot was now completely shaded. I am already losing out on precious sunlight for my tomatoes from 25 foot Acacia next door.
When tall buildings are proposed, the developer must perform a Shadow Analysis Study to ensure surrounding properties are not completely devoid of sunlight after the building goes up.
There are many species of trees/shrubs that would be more appropriate as screens in suburban backyard. A reasonable neighbor would go to greater lengths to add screening without encroaching on a neighbor’s property—not spend $37,000 trying to defend a bad decision.