View Preservation Policy is Cumbersome and Expensive

Another example of bad policy by the Laguna City Council is the view preservation policy. This new policy is intended to protect prior views, including hedges that are not within the front, rear, and side “setbacks”. There is no maximum height for hedges under the policy.

It requires the person filing the claim (the claimant) to fill out an “Intent” form, show proof of contact with the foliage owner to resolve the issue, provide proof of a “before” view, and pay a $500 initial, minimum fee (plus any additional actual costs) for a non-binding arbitration. There is no incentive for the other party to settle.

If this is not successful, then the claimant must file a view restoration claim and pay another $630 and have a public hearing with a committee. So far, the claimant has paid a minimum of $1,130 to have a hedge or a tree trimmed.

If successful, the claimant must then obtain three bids from certified arborists, and pay a deposit and the final total arborist cost (which may be later apportioned at a hearing) and be liable to replace the plant if it dies within two years even though it was trimmed by a professional. So the final costs are about $1,500 or more depending on how much foliage needs to be trimmed.

If either party wishes to appeal the committee decision, they must pay $2,500 to have a hearing with the City Council.

Is this prohibitively cumbersome and expensive policy at all reasonable? Where is the incentive for the person not filing the claim to settle?

Why not just have an initial step where a simple application is filed, a small fee paid, and a code enforcement officer looks at the issue and makes a binding determination? This would undoubtedly resolve most cases. The loser can then use the current policy, or hopefully a simplified one, to appeal his decision if they wish.

Louis Leo, Laguna Beach