City Stays Clear as 2 Neighbors Feud Over Fence : Simi Valley: Officials decline to pass view protection laws advocated by a homeowner battling a 6-foot wall shielding the adjacent property.

In an older hillside neighborhood in southwest Simi Valley, a six-foot redwood fence and a bitter legal dispute separate the Elandts from the Goodwins.

Kenneth and Coral Elandt say the fence, put up two years ago by the Goodwins, has destroyed their view and devalued their property.

Robert and Mary Lou Goodwin say that they just wanted a little privacy and that the fence does not violate the city’s building codes.

The two couples have filed lawsuits against each other, and a Ventura County Superior Court judge may ultimately decide the fate of the fence.

But the Elandts believe that a larger issue is at stake: the protection of views at hillside houses throughout the city.

For the past two years, since the Goodwins’ fence went up, they have pressed Simi Valley officials to adopt hillside building rules that would prohibit a property owner from throwing up a wall, a solid fence or tall landscaping that would spoil a neighbor’s view.

The proposed law would not be retroactive, so it would not affect the fence next to the Elandts’ house. The couple said they simply want to keep other hillside homeowners from losing their views.

“The real issue is, do you have the right to put up a fence in such a way that it totally takes away the rights from another person and deliberately lowers their property values,” Kenneth Elandt said. “My situation, I think, is the worst-case scenario of what can happen.

“There’s nothing to protect people.”

Earlier this month, the Simi Valley City Council dealt the Elandts a serious setback, voting 4 to 0 against the proposed hillside view protection rules.

City officials said they were reluctant to interfere with a property owner’s right to privacy and security--even when a neighbor’s view was blocked.

“It’s just a very thorny and difficult issue,” Mayor Greg Stratton said. “I think the council felt that this was one of those times when there was not going to be a win-win situation. We would have to take sides.

“Do you have a vested right to a view? That’s a tough legal question.”

Councilwoman Judy Mikels believes that a homeowner has a right to put a fence around the house.

“It’s a basic property right,” she said. “If I plant a tree in my back yard to shade my dining room window, it could potentially grow up and block the view of a neighbor.

“My feeling is that I’m sorry. They can ask me to cut the tree down. But I shouldn’t be forced to cut the tree down.”

Simi Valley does not ignore view issues entirely.

It restricts hillside development to protect the public’s view of the mountains surrounding the city. City officials sometimes consider views when they evaluate the proposed layout of a new hillside housing project.

Many developers also set up deed restrictions and homeowner associations that limit the type of fences, walls or landscaping a homeowner can construct.

But Simi Valley, like most California cities, has shied away from laws that would protect the vista that an owner enjoys outside an existing house.

After the Elandts raised the issue, Simi Valley planners surveyed cities throughout the state.

They found that only a handful provide hillside view protection through review panels and regulations concerning the height and placement of fences and landscaping.

None of those cities was in Ventura County.

“When you get into view protection, you’re at the outer limits of subjectivity and the balancing of one person’s rights versus their neighbor’s rights to privacy and security,” said John Prescott, a city planner in Thousand Oaks. “It’s a very difficult area in which to weigh the equities.”

It could also be costly and time-consuming to impose strict new rules on view protection, said Mark Stephens, a planner in Ventura. “The byword is, we should reduce government regulations.”

George Lefcoe, a professor of real estate law at USC, said he was surprised that some cities try to regulate what homeowners see from their property.

“Everyone’s view is blocked at some time by something--trees, for instance,” he said. “If you had a strict view-protection ordinance, you probably couldn’t build anything in a hillside area.”

Lefcoe said judges usually will not order the removal of a legal fence just because it disrupts a neighbor’s view.

“There’s no common-law right to a view,” he said. “It’s not your neighbor’s responsibility to protect the value of your house, unless he behaves in a way that constitutes a nuisance.”

Lefcoe said the best way to preserve a view is to buy an easement from the neighbor guaranteeing that no obstructions will be built on the land covered by the easement.

In the Simi Valley fence dispute, Lefcoe said the Elandts will probably “spend a ton more (money) in litigation than they would for an easement.”

Kenneth Elandt, a 50-year-old nurse anesthetist, said he and his wife moved to Simi Valley in 1978 and bought their house on Hudspeth Avenue because of its spacious three-quarter-acre lot and its panoramic view of the city.

He said the trouble began in 1989 when the Goodwins cut down a hedge on Elandt’s property, according to the Elandts, and removed a low picket fence, then replaced them with a six-foot wooden fence. A year later, Elandt said, they destroyed his remaining view by replacing a chain-link fence with more wooden planks.

Since then, the Elandts said, the brown fence blocks the view they had enjoyed from the large picture windows in their dining room and from the patio in their back yard.

“I do a lot of gardening,” said Coral Elandt, who also raises sheep and hens in a small barnyard area. “I’m an outdoor person, so the loss of the view is very distressing to me.”

Kenneth Elandt believes that his house would sell for about $10,000 less because it no longer has a scenic view.

Mary Lou Goodwin disagrees. “He didn’t lose his mountain view, as far as I’m concerned,” she said. “He can just stand back 10 feet and he’s got his view. He just lost his view of our back yard.”

Goodwin said she was annoyed when the Elandts’ gardening waste blew onto her property. And she did not want her neighbors to be able to peer down into her back yard.

“I’m entitled to privacy,” she said. “That’s basically why I put up the fence.”

In their lawsuits, the neighbors also disagree about the removal of the original fences, the destruction of the hedges, and whether the fences and hedges were on the Goodwins’ land or the Elandts’. The Elandts also allege that the wooden fence has created a safety hazard for them because it would block the view of their house by passing police cars.

Both families are seeking damages for trespassing.

Attorneys for both sides said they hope that the dispute can be resolved through arbitration without a costly, time-consuming trial.

Kenneth Elandt believes that other residents might not have to endure this ordeal if the City Council had adopted the view preservation law he proposed.

“The people of Simi Valley need to know that when you buy a home, you have no protection over what you’re looking at,” he said. “And the city has not responded, other than to send you to a court of law. That’s irresponsible government.”