CHASING DOWN THE MUSE: City’s tree and hedge laws need clarity

The conversation about views versus trees continues to grow roots and limbs.

Two weeks ago, I wrote about my own and neighbors’ views being blocked by a forest of trees. Since that column, I have heard vociferously from both the tree huggers and those who are frustrated by years of city policies that have left them trapped behind green walls grown by their downhill neighbors.

I’ve continued to contemplate the issue and recognize that balance between opposing points of view is never easy. However, our city prides itself on — and advertises — its location and its perks. A quick look at the Chamber website and our much touted “Window to the Sea” is readily discernible.

I drove down to the corner of Broadway and Coast Highway and pondered the wonder of our Main Beach Park — home of said “window.”

Under the careful tutelage of Harry Lawrence back in late ’50s, the dream of transforming a dilapidated downtown boardwalk into a showcase park and walkway was undertaken.

As I gazed upon the oceanfront park, I “got” it: The city does understand the value of an ocean view. Otherwise, they would have planted a forest of ficus and/or eucalyptus in hedge formation to provide privacy for the beachgoers. Which in essence is what my neighbors — and those of others — have done.

The Chamber of Commerce website states: “We of Laguna believe we have a beautiful, unique city. Truly, Nature has been good to us for a place to live with our hills, ocean, the weather and great views.”

An article in the Arizona Daily Star states: “Laguna Beach has splendid views, providing a great window on the sea, tides, sand, surf, sunsets, and a very special something extra.”

Can you imagine Laguna Beach without views?

The city cares about protecting the view from its parks. A perfect example can be found in the required “burying” of houses on the top of Park Avenue so that an expansive view of the Pacific is unencumbered from Alta Laguna Park.

Our dramatic hillsides and breathtaking vistas define our topography. The city has devoted an entire chapter in the Design Review Board handbook on how to handle view issues during the development phase of properties. Panoramic views are to be protected — imposition should be considered only on the edges or periphery. Realtors also understand. Resale values rise and fall on what can be seen from a property. White-water views are considered more valuable than others. I used to have one. Now I have trees and a distant blue horizon.

The city gets the view concept, but doesn’t know how to manage the issue.

There are currently two options available to address view concerns: The Hedge Claim Ordinance, put into place Dec. 3, 2002, and the View Preservation Ordinance, dated Nov. 4, 2003. My sense is that neither is particularly effective, or we wouldn’t still be having this conversation.

The Hedge Claim Ordinance limits the heights of hedges that are in front, side or rear yard setbacks to the maximum fence heights, only if they are determined to be a safety hazard and/or adversely impact views from or sunlight to neighboring properties.

The View Preservation Ordinance stated goal is: to facilitate the preservation of view equity and/or sunlight access that has been obstructed by trees or vegetation. However, it only applies to obstructions that have occurred after the effective date of Dec. 4, 2003.

Both ordinances have complicated submittal processes. The first step forces an attempt to negotiate with neighbors — i.e., plead with them to remove the offending vegetation. This rarely results in warm neighborly feelings.

The Hedge Claim has money associated with it, and multiple filings required. The View Preservation ordinance has at its resolution end a “Tree Board” — which at this writing does not seem to exist.

Hedge claims are first “heard” by a representative for the director of community development — with merit solely from the municipal code — vegetation is allowable to the maximum height of a corresponding fence. However, the representative has the option of allowing an increased height. If the applicant/or the “offender” is dissatisfied with the decision, an appeal can be made to Design Review — which also holds the power of interpretation. Further appeals can be made. One begins to sense a leviathan process — with no predictable resolution, much time and money spent, and a great deal of emotional anguish.

I don’t have an answer, but I believe there has to be a better process. Dare I mention that Rancho Palos Verdes has a tree ordinance that has stood the test of litigation? I believe that clearly drawn guidelines will better serve our community.

CATHARINE COOPER welcomes your ideas and comments. She can be reached at [email protected]