Laguna Beach May Establish ‘Right to a View’

Officials are proposing a law that would make this city the first in Orange County to establish a resident’s right to a view.

While the ordinance offers no guaranteed remedy for those who believe their views are unfairly blocked by trees, it does for the first time declare that all residents are “hereby granted the right to have a reasonable amount of the view, airflow and sunlight” available to their homes.

The ordinance would “legitimize concerns neighbors have about their view, air or sunlight being blocked,” said City Manager Kenneth C. Frank, and could strengthen their case in court.

In this picturesque community where both ocean vistas and lush greenery are practically considered birthrights, the proposed law already is stirring controversy one day after it was released in draft form Tuesday night.

Even though it could be months before the City Council sees a final version of the ordinance, its proponents already want the law to be much tougher, and tree lovers are predicting lawsuits

“We had a pretty tremendous fire here in this town because it’s not Laguna Beach but Laguna Forest,” said resident Dave Connell, who wants a law that makes it easier to restore views.

The proposed ordinance, which can be used retroactively to reestablish views, is intended to create a process by which neighbors can resolve disputes over views through communication, mediation, arbitration or civil lawsuits, city planner Carolyn Martin said.

The proposal encourages neighbors to resolve a dispute privately without any city intervention. If the initial meeting between neighbors fails, the complaining homeowner or renter can file a claim and seek mediation or arbitration. The final step toward resolution would be to use the court system, officials said.

The proposal prohibits residents from arbitrarily altering or removing vegetation without first going through that process.

Martin said city officials examined view preservation laws in other California cities before drafting the proposed ordinance.

Two cities in Los Angeles County--Rancho Palos Verdes and Rolling Hills--have such ordinances, as do six cities in Northern California.

“We’re not the first city in California to wrestle with the issue,” said Frank, the city manager. “So we’re not totally reinventing the wheel.”

Preserving views has been a dicey issue in Laguna Beach, where residents tend to be fiercely protective of both sweeping vistas and towering old trees.

But since the October 1993 firestorm, which damaged or destroyed 441 homes in and around Laguna Beach, the view preservationists have become more vocal. In addition, a new City Council majority elected in 1994 tends to be more sympathetic to property rights than were the previous leaders.

In February, residents complaining that overgrown trees pose a fire hazard urged the council to create an ordinance that would force residents to remove or trim trees on private property. View proponents say they have collected more than 2,000 signatures from people favoring a law protecting views.

Earlier this year, Fire Chief William Edmundson said his department had received “an ever-increasing number of fire hazard tree-related complaints” but that in most cases the “fire hazard” turned out to be a tree blocking a view.

Edmundson suggested that the city might want to establish the “Laguna Beach Tree Police” to handle the problem. A subcommittee was formed in March to address the issue and has been holding meetings since then.

Connell, who is also president of the Laguna Beach Taxpayers’ Assn., said the city should take a more active role in enforcing view preservation than is called for in the proposed ordinance.

“It’s toothless. It evades the entire issue,” he said. “It recognizes the need but doesn’t do anything about enforcement.

“Views are worth real money,” he added. “If you go to sell [your property], you take a financial beating if your neighbor blocks your view.”

While view preservation is commonly considered in new construction as part of the city’s design review process, the proposed ordinance includes an “exception” that would allow it to be used retroactively.

As a result, if adopted in its current form, the law could be applied to view grievances that have cropped up over the past five years, if a claim is filed within 90 days after the ordinance become effective.

“To retroactively create a view corridor where none existed before and that is not part of the permit application, that’s the touchy part,” said Ann Christoph, a former city councilwoman and landscape architect.

“I think it’s going to be a tough one,” she said. “I don’t think this is going to be quietly adopted.”

Rolling Hills City Manager Craig Nealis said the view preservation ordinance there has served its residents, encouraging cooperation among neighbors. Only two view impairment claims have been filed there in at least six years.

“It serves to bring people to the table to discuss their view differences and, in the vast majority of cases, resolve those differences privately,” Nealis said.

Nealis said the city of Rolling Hills has never been sued over its view preservation law, and Frank said he thinks Laguna Beach is on solid legal ground with its proposed ordinance.

“No matter what we do, there will be a difficult education process for people, and we are breaking new ground,” Frank said.

But, he added, “I think what we have is legally defensible.”

Not everyone is convinced the proposed law will address the continuing problem of view obstruction.

David Milton said residents in his Arch Beach Heights community have worked with a mediator already but have failed to reach an agreement over the obstruction by trees of their ocean view.

“The whole thing just blew up in our faces and was even made worse,” Milton said.

While Milton said he appreciates the city establishing a property owner’s right to a view, he said he thinks the city should actively enforce the ordinance.

“It’s a tiny step in the right direction,” he said.