Plan Would Root Out Cause of Marred Vistas
As rustic Rolling Hills Estates has grown up, so have its trees--the eucalyptus and the pine planted by developers and homeowners about three decades ago.
And as the trees have grown, some spectacular views have gone--or at least lost some of their splendor.
“I had a view of the Redondo harbor that went clear around to Santa Monica,” said Christina Priebe of Rollingwood Drive. “Now I have some shaggy eucalyptus and an Aleppo pine that is all over the place blocking the view.” She said she has lost a third of the view she enjoyed when she moved in 16 years ago.
Progressive Problem
Betty Venable, who moved to Elmdale Drive 30 years ago, tells a similar story: “We had an absolutely panoramic view. We could see from Malibu to Newport Beach. We watched the Queen Mary come in from our living room.” Venable concedes that she still has an enviable view, “but it is closing in with trees.”
Several residents said that view impairment has been a progressive problem that they began noticing anywhere from five to 10 years ago, to the distress of both their eyes and their property values in a community where real estate brokers say a view can add $10,000 to $50,000 to the price of a home.
“The view was one of the major considerations in the purchase of the house to begin with,” said Russ Granata, a Rollingwood Drive resident since 1963. “We could have gotten a lot more house for the money without the view.”
Neighbors Work It Out
For the most part, people say, neighbors have been able to work things out and problem trees have been trimmed or removed--sometimes at the owner’s expense, and sometimes at the expense of the complaining neighbor.
But there have been instances in which people have taken a long time to act, or have insisted on keeping their trees for privacy or safety.
Now, the city Planning Commission is studying a proposed ordinance that would declare that views “increase the enjoyment and value of property” and would create a formal system for arbitrating disputes, with the planning director as mediator. If agreement cannot be reached, the commission would make a decision that could be appealed to the City Council.
Costs for tree work, whether trimming, topping, removal or replacement, would be paid for by the person complaining about a tree, but the owner would have to maintain the tree after that.
Failure to comply with a decision by the commission or council would be a misdemeanor punishable by a $1,000 fine or 30 days in jail.
“There is definitely a problem,” said commission Chairman Robert Huskins. “There has to be some safeguard from being inundated by the jungle. Unfortunately, there are some residents who are not sensitive to neighbors’ concerns, or they view benefits they derive as much greater than detrimental effects on others.”
‘Legitimate Concern’
Commissioner William Ailor said that views are one of the things that draw people to the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and losing one “is a legitimate concern.”
The commission, which is looking into the tree-view issue at the council’s request, has held two public hearings. The proposed ordinance was unveiled last week, and another commission hearing is scheduled for May 18.
Residents at the hearings, many of whom came from the hillside Rollingwood neighborhood off Silver Spur Road, generally have supported actions to protect views. A survey by the neighborhood homeowner association turned up 29 people in favor and one opposed to city action, according to the group.
However, the commission also has heard from people who say their trees protect the stability of their sloping property and shield them from traffic.
Written Notification
Although the ordinance calls for a written application by people who believe their views have been unfairly damaged and notification to tree owners by registered mail, officials say the intent is to get property owners to reach agreement without having to go that far.
Formal city action “would be a court of last resort,” said Planning Director Stephen Emslie.
“We do not want a confrontational-type environment, resident against resident,” Ailor said. “The ordinance itself should emphasize informal contact as the first approach. Work informally first, (then) maybe escalate up to a more formal procedure.”
Some commissioners, as well as residents, said they believe most people would be willing to modify trees that are blocking neighbors’ views and would not require compulsion by the city.
“It’s hard for me to visualize someone being jailed because they don’t trim their trees,” Planning Commissioner Kenneth Mitchell said.
Four Trees Removed
Huskins used himself as an example: “I took out four trees, as high as 60 and 70 feet, because they were really blocking the neighbors’ views.” He said he paid for the work.
Emslie said that although the approach the city is taking to trees versus views is not unprecedented in California, few cities have passed ordinances providing for a complaint procedure and arbitration. Sausalito has banned certain vegetation known to create problems because of rapid growth.
Locally, Rancho Palos Verdes tried an ordinance governing views and trees a few years ago, but abandoned it because it was too difficult to administer, according to the city.
A Rolling Hill Estates staff report states that existing ordinances have created controversy and enforcement problems because--unlike man-made structures that are readily regulated by view protection ordinances--landscaping grows and requires continual attention. Permits are not required for landscaping so there is no city review before problem vegetation is put in.
Different Views of Problem
“Landscaping can be different things to different people,” the report states. “While an uphill property owner sees a stand of eucalyptus trees as an obstruction of his view of L.A. Harbor, the downhill property owner sees the trees as a protection of his privacy.”
Officials and some residents say that these, along with the aspect of trees helping to stabilize hillside property, will be the toughest nuts to crack if an ordinance is adopted.
The situation facing resident Vince Neisius is a good example. One of his downhill neighbors has trees that block a portion of Neisius’ city and coastline view. The neighbor regards the trees as a shield for his patio, and while he has permited Neisius’ gardener to shape them, they still obstruct some of the view.
“There are trade-offs,” said Neisius. “I can appreciate that the man wants trees for privacy though they mar our view.”
Problem on Silver Spur
Over on Rollingwood Drive, residents have been trying to get Fern Hendrickson--whose home is on the corner of busy Silver Spur Road--to thin some pine trees that interfere with the view from six homes.
“Our trees are overgrown,” Hendrickson told the Planning Commission last week, “but they give us fresh air and a feeling of being in the country.” She said they also offer protection from Silver Spur traffic, “keeping cars from rolling into our back yard.”
Rollingwood resident Jack Wright said he is getting cost estimates and has invited the Hendricksons over to see the view problem for themselves.
The proposed Rolling Hills Estates ordinance, in setting criteria for decisions on tree modification or removal, takes into consideration the relative contributions of vegetation and views to property values. It also looks at the environmental benefits of the vegetation, including erosion control, contribution to slope stability, noise reduction and wind screening.
Several commissioners said that if an ordinance is adopted, the city should make the first gesture and thin out street and parkland trees that are blocking views. This prompted Commissioner Mitchell to say that once the city figures out how much that will cost, the council may want to drop the whole idea of a view ordinance.
