Vegetation vs. views still an issue in Laguna

Barbara Diamond

The Planning Commission will take another look at proposed revisions

to the view ordinance.

“This is going to be like a two-ton doughnut in their stomachs,”

Councilman Wayne Baglin said. “They have worked on it before and

haven’t gotten a handle on it.”

City officials at commission and council levels have wrestled with

the vegetation versus view issue for more than 10 years and have yet

to come up with a solution that satisfies the concerns of the entire

community.

The council came no closer to a resolution at Tuesday’s meeting

after reviewing the commission’s latest draft revision, based on what

the commissioners believed they had been directed to do -- but

recommended dumping it.

“This is our fault,” Councilwoman Cheryl Kinsman said. “We told

them what to do. Now, I’d like to give them new direction.”

The council voted 3 to 2 on Councilwoman Elizabeth Pearson’s

motion to send the ordinance back to the commission. The commission

was directed to review the version it crafted in 1997, subsequently

rejected by the council, with the thought of a right to view equity,

rather than a right to a view, a sticking point with at least one

council member. The council also directed the commission to consider

obtaining the services of a tree expert, establishing the date of

property purchase as the baseline for view restoration, exploring

ways to fund enforcement of the ordinance and keeping the city’s role

minimal.

They all shied away from a Palos Verdes-style ordinance that makes

the city responsible for enforcement at a cost that Laguna council

members considered prohibitive and established a view restoration

process. Restoration resonates with Laguna’s view proponents.

“We are being robbed of something very precious,” Laguna Beach

resident Margery Adams said after showing a video of the view she

said she used to enjoy.

Kinsman and Pearson were members of the Planning Commission when

the 1997 version was recommended to the council after two years of

public meetings. Commissioners at the time believed that the council

gutted the version by removing “right to a view” from the language,

which weakened the ability to enforce a solution and eliminating

restoration on the advice of the city attorney.

The ’97 ordinance, which gave equal weight to the value of trees

and views, never sat well with view preservation folks.

“Here we are, 10 years later, still hassling about it,” said Dave

Connell, a member of an ad hoc committee of residents that crafted

its own version of a view ordinance. “When we started, I had a full

head of hair, and now, I am practically bald, and this is the reason.

“This was a waste of time,” he said after the council vote

Tuesday.

The issue clearly divides the town.

“This is Laguna Beach, not Laguna Forest,” Lynn Shadlow said.

However, there are trees in town that were planted in the 1800s,

long before most residents or even their ancestors lived here.

Federal law required early settlers to plant trees on their

homesteaded acreage.

“I think [ocean] views are great, too, but some of us -- in fact,

a great number of people in our area -- are fond of trees,” North

Laguna resident Ben Blount said. “Sometimes, the trees are the only

view we have.

Blount said he and his wife chose to live in Laguna Beach because

of the trees.

Baglin’s no vote Tuesday was not based on an objection to a view

ordinance, but on the process approved by council, he said. He

suggested establishing a council-appointed task force.

Council instructed the commission to return with recommendations

within four months.

An extension could be granted if more time was needed to evaluate

the hedge ordinance, which the council had approved despite a

commission recommendation against it.