Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-07-25; City Council; 15844; Need For A View Ordinance Within Carlsbadt .i -._ - 1,. q;u,g ..eI_.- ilTY OF CARLSBAD - AGEhd BILL AB# 15,754q TITLE: Request From Altamira II HOA to Give Presentation on the Need MTG. 7-aSa for a View Ordinance Within the City of Carlsbad DEPT. CM RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation from the Altamira II Homeowner’s Association requesting that the City adopt a View Ordinance and establish a View Preservation and Restoration Commission. ITEM EXPLANATION: The City Council provides an opportunity for citizens and organizations to have an item placed on a City Council Agenda by submitting a letter to the City Manager. Attached is a letter (Exhibit 1) from the Altamira II Homeowners Association requesting to make a presentation to the City Council on the need for a View Ordinance and to establish a View Preservation and Restoration Commission within the City of Carlsbad. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown at this time. 1. Letter to Ray Patchett, City Manager, from Phil Smith, President, Altamira II Homeowner’s Association, dated June 22, 2000. % -- - EXHIBIT 1 Altamira IS Homeowners' Association Please reply to; Marcia Ross 901-E Caminito Madrigal Carlsbad, CA 92009 760/931-1012 phone/fax % marciaross@webtv.net +kS& June 22, 2000 49 Claude "Buddy" Lewis, Mayor Matt Hall, Mayor Pro Tern ehetrt ) City Manager Ramona Finnila, Julianne Nygaard, Ann Kulchin, City Council Members Doug Duncanson, Scott Carroll, Public Works Department Dear i=ity of Carlsbad: On June 6, 2000, representatives from Altamira II of Carlsbad came before the City Council on Item $20, regarding implemen- tation of a Street Tree Policy for Carlsbad. We were there to recommend that an Ocean View and Tree Policy be included in an overall ordinance. It became clear that Ocean Views and a Tree Ordinance would have to be taken up on its own merits in a July meeting. We therefore request that such item be placed on the agenda by July 25, 2000. We see very clearly that the City of Carlsbad needs a View Preservation and Restoration Commission like Ranch0 Palos Verdes Ordinance of 1989. There must be a balance between green and blue. Since Carlsbad lost a case in 1972, over 28 years ago, times have changed. Since then, view ordinances have been passed by many cities and upheld by the courts. It's a new ballgame. Views are valuable. Trees can be planted and maintained in such a way that views are not blocked. We need a strong law; not one that is not worth the paper it is written on. Of the 128 complaints in Ranch0 Palos Verdes, 97 were settled, or 76%, while 24% would be completed by City action. Trees and views both add to the values of of our property. Those who do not maintain their trees must be held responsible for the situation. We no longercan hold the "ostrich with its head in the sand" position, but we must clarify and construct a long overdue Ocean View and Tree Ordinance, which is now in order. We look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, -q '- Guy W. MC reary, chairman, gasident Ocean View Preservation Altamira 1; Homeowners' Association Ad Hoc Committee t Attachment: Article, "Can't See Ocean for the Trees? Down They Come" Los Angeles Times, June 12, 2000 a- - Can’t See Ocean for the Trees? Down They Come l Law: Ranch0 PAS Verde3 view ordinance draws outcries from those whose trees are cut. But other cities wonder ifit could be a model. IS\ JESSICA tiAlU<ISON sI;tII*L IU llli 11\1F, After 30 yrars of horizons blocked by lrertops, Ken L~ydrr now can wke up, wtlk tnto his Hancho Pales Ve111rs living room and behold a panorarmc vista of Scinu hwa Bay ad the top of Mt. Baldy. The only drawback: Padam +ngh, his newly treeless nelghbor downhdl. has stopped speaking to him. The feud began a year and a half ago when author- sties showed up at Smgh’s house. armed with cham S;IWP and a comrovrrsral ordinance that ;ums to protect residents’ sight lines. ‘l’hry cul and trimmed half a ~lozrn trees m Smgh’s backyard to gwe Dyda a room with ;I ww. Jlngh was not plrasetl. to say the least, to find him- self lusmg a lypr of nrighbarhood war b~mg waged \r~th growing frequency in Cahforma. The rights of homeowners to gate upon the horizon irom wmdows are txmg pltte$l against their nelghbors’ lights to nur- turr greenery to its full and lrafy potenbal. + Please see VIFW. AlG Al6 MONDAY, JUNE 12, ZoOa George Boss cut 37 of his 38 backyard trees after neighbors acted to restore wews. VIEW: Testing Homeowners’ Rights 1-i Cwtinued from Al Voters in Rancho Pales Verdes. a wealthy suburb of 47,WJ set on a plateau with postcard vistas of ocean and mountams, approved the VIW Restoration and Preservahon Ordmance m 1989. Although sev- eral suits challengmg the law have lust m the lower courts, another case has reached the state Court of Appeal. Illeanwhllr. as development spryads over C&forma’s hdls and valleys. breathtaking views are m- creasmgly seen as a sellmg point as crucial as a two-car garage or a sumlmlng pool. So, many Califor- nia cihes are watching Ranch0 Pa- 10s Verdes closely. trying to draw lessons on how to balance green thumbs and hungry eyes. Ken Wdhs. president of the League of Cahlol nia Homeowners, sad rt IS obvwus why cities are be- lng asked to protect views. “No matter how pretty a tree 1s. if it knocks out your vww. that could cost anywhere from $10.000 to $100.000.” he sand “You can plan1 all the bees you want to, but If 11 affects your nelghbor’s property values. you’ve got a problem.” One of the nation’s first, the Rancho Pales Verdes vtew law also is considered one of the strictest. Homeowners can have thew views “restored” to what the lots offered when the houses were built. They rnn do so even rf that was 30 years *go and their windows were shrouded wth leaves when they bought their homes lust last year. That can defy another phdosophy in envlronmenlally consuous sub- utbs’ protecrlng trees at ali cost. Dytla. a iesldrnt of four decades and a former mayor of Rnncho Pa- lm Vrrtlrs who sits on the city’s ap- pomted View Preservation and Resroratjon Commlsslon, said it st111 looki good to him ‘We bought IUI thr YICW,” hr uld of his “I,- aw,mr,g lnnch house on a strep r!cpr I;ILIII.: ruth Wr psid d pl?- n,,t.,n lul ,I orw r\nfl thrn, thr UICAS .IC,V Iii.{ I got thy ‘i,e\u t,.,<k. .,,,<I I II,,,>, .!#IIIII~ I 1/11/ L / I,,. I I Bul the VLew from tile property down below LS dtiffermt: “They butchered our trees.” said Dyda’s neighbor Sqh, who bemoaned the fact that his nemesis can now see straight into his bedroom. “You cannot buy the atmosphere around your house. Trees also have IlIe. It is against humanity,” he said. “Those trees added value to my property.” Homeowners llke Dyda have taken photographs to register their views wtth lhe city or rely on aerial shots taken in the 1960s. If neigh- bors cannot see eye to eye, city offi- clals and tree experts inspect. often sitting on couches and reclming on beds Lo assess vistas from a variety of angles. Then, a case can be argued be- fore the city’s view commwon. Its ruling can be appealed to the City Council. View seekers pay up to $Z,wO In administrative fees plus tree-trim- ming costs and money to buy re- placement vegetation, but do not have to compensate for the value of a 40.year-old pine about to be ielled. All that peermg and talking can take months and even years and cost a lot. In 1998, admmlstrative costs to the city alone were an unacceptable $300.000 above what the $2,000 fees raised. Mayor Lee Byrd said. Yet, c&y offwals stress that the ordinance has encouraged many calm settlements that didn’t enter the bureaucracy Hundreds of L’ESI- dents have jat down over a cup of coflee and happdy agreed to d little trim here and a little compromise there. And Ilghtmg over the YWW orill- nance is nothlng compared wth the CIVII war waged m the decades before the law. officials recalled. Reports then abounded of other- wse upstanding professionals sneaking alound dt mght with elms of poison to kdl nrlghbors’ 11~s. & //,/I S,U,ICS of ,\;,aty ,,,cks Ilk? <.111- ~ng tI ee-tt Immers to the YJI 11s 01 v.i<dl,uning nrlghbols t . So in 1989, Proposition M was approved by 70% of the voters. Since then, 128 Ranch0 Pales Ver- des homeowners have been unable to persuade neighbors Lo prune and have asked the city for help. In the vast majority of cases, city olficials acted to restore the views. Byrd said he and many other crty officials are distressed at the pam that causes for newly pruned neigh- bors-even after more mediation was mtmduced last year in hopes of making the process more fair. Too much of the city’s money and time is being spent on lhe law. Byrd said. But he added that coun- cil members cannot make too many reforms because the law was passed by voters, and voters would have the choice of repealmg It. “The unfortunate part of the or- dmance IS when nelghbors ended up m real disagreement. There would be terrible arguments, to the pomt that neither one would be able to discuss it rationally,” smd Byrd TWO years ago, one man collapsed wth heart trouble durmg an Impas- wned plea before the City Councd to save his trees and was hospital- rzed for several weeks, Byrd said Many planners elsewhere say they look at Rancho Pales Verdes as an example of what not to do. “That’s where we don’t want to go,” salt1 Jalme LlmOn, Senlor Qlan- ner for Santa Barbara where city offwials aw conwlermg a view or- dln.wr bul 110 ,101 w:unt t” cilfolci, 11 wkth cwrt OIII~IS .wd cham saws 3 Laguna Beach Law Has No Teeth Laguna Beach is, like Ranch0 Pales Verdes. a town of expensive houses scattered across ocean bluffs. After heated debate, tts counctl passed a view ordinance in 1997. But, because of concerns about its constitutionalitv. Laauna Beach’s law is nonbind&. That means city ofhcials can recommend but no1 force tree trims. Laguna Beach has hardly be- come a peaceful oasis of trees and ocean vrews, satd the city’s assist- ant planning director, John Mont- gomery. “I’d give us a B- or a C t ,” he said. “There’s been some resolu- tion, but there are many people who are stilt fighting.” Trburon. which spreads over the hills just north of San Francisco’s Golden Gate Bridge, passed what many city planners consider the granddaddy of view ordinances in 1970. But Ihen, in 1991, over- whelmed by lawsmts and dis- Irersed by all the staff time and money being spent, city officials re placed rules that allowed forced cutting with nonbinding guidelines that urge mediation. Other experts questioned whether Rancho Pales Verdes’ ordinance is constitutional. “You can’t just come in and use someone’s property with- out compensating them,” said Stuart Meek. a research specialist at the American Planning Assn. in Chi- cago. View ordmances, in essence, give a homeowner the right to use the air space above their neighbors’ property, Meek said. “You wouldn’t try that in the Midwest,” he said, noting that Cali- fornia’s state Constitution tends to give local governments more power than in many other states. So far, the courts have come down on the side of bright picture windows. Prior cases that sought to have the Rancho Pales Verdes law declared unconstitutional erther lost or were dismissed in recent years. In a case against Tiburon’s old ordi- nance, the state Court of Appeal ruled in 1997 that cities have the right to pass laws protecting views. However, another lawsuit agamst Ranch0 Pales Verdes, filed by tree owner Jon Echevarrieta. is before the state Court-of Appeal. Echevarrieta, who has so fat staved off the charn saws, declared the law “a cancer” and “an mfringement of Please see VIEW. Al 7 II VIEW: Rights 11 Continued frum Alti properly rights.” In an unusual tack, Echevarrreta plans to argue that cutting down a 40-year-old I tree constitutes a wrongful takmg. “My nrrghbors claim they own the airspace around my property,” he said. “After 35 years of watermg and cultivating, it just makes you crazy.” Echevarrteta has organlzed tree-loving homeowners in Ranch0 Pales Verdes into a iobbying gruup to fight the urdmance. Ted Commerdinger, an expert on I policy and legtslation with the Cafi- forma. Chapter of the Amerrcan Planning Assn.. satd view ordinan- ces have never been fully tested in the courts. because no property owner has ever appealed a case to the California Supreme Court or the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. “B’s gomg to be a very mteresbng issue. There’s all kinds of arguments all over the map on thus, but the fun- damental question IS, where do your property rights end?” he Said. In Rancho Pales Verdes, the an- swer to that question has tended to be way beyond the hornson. Ntnety-seven of the 128 cases brought to the view commtsston have been resolved, and in all but a handful, city offtciajs ordered trees trimmed or cut. Six other challenges, includmg Echevarrieta’s. are tied up in court, and 23 are still pending resolutions m the city, sard Emmanual Ursu, a city official who works on the view ordinance. In some cases, the emotions lin- ger after the trees are gone. Resrdent George Boss, who voted for the ordinance, cut down 3’7 of his 38 backyard trees after hrs netghbors petitioned the city to have their views restored. Many of the view blockers were pure trees, whrch would have died if trammed back to the height mandated by the city, he satd. Others would have required prunmg every year. With a limtted pension and a bad back, Boss de- cided he couldn’t manage that. So he had the trees removed. His wife burst mto tears when she saw the denuded yard. The cou- ple remain so distressed that they plan to move to San Diego County. “In our next house, we’re gonna be the ones on top,” Boss satd.