Searching for that perfect unobstructed view.

Searching For That Unobstructed View

Here is a story of how the association might be able to help certain homeowners keep their cherished view unobstructed by a few fast growing palm trees, whether that view is of the golf course, the cityscape to the north, or the desert and mountains to the west. Most homeowners were accustomed to the notion that they were not entitled to a view. That issue had been litigated and was lost in negotiations with the developer. And then, of course, there was our infamous tree cutter Douglas Hoffman who wanted to improve his view by felling the trees just behind his home. He was arrested and sentenced to serve a one-year jail term for cutting down more than 500 trees; in 2010, he was rearrested for making threats against a public official. The notion of the homeowner being unable to preserve their view may be changing if one homeowner has his way with the Property & Grounds Committee and the board. If only the committee and board will agree to remove those potentially offending trees, the homeowners' golf course view will be preserved.

One can never anticipate what might come out of a Property & Grounds Committee meeting. Take for example the innocuous Item J, Trees on DiPinto Ave. If you were looking for a potential tree issue on DiPinto, look as hard as you might and you would be hard pressed to find one. Below is a picture of a row of fan palm trees looming just behind the developer's perimeter block wall, virtually out of view of the homeowners but threatening to obstruct a highly sought-after golf course view. Depending on the variety of palm, they can grow to a height of from 60 to over 80 feet. For more on the California fan palm, click here.

But homeowners being homeowners, especially those upper DiPinto homeowners pictured above who are overlooking the golf course, they are on the lookout for anything that might obstruct what’s near and dear to them—their view. If they spot a leaf or branch beginning to intrude on their spectacular view, or in this case, their potential view, that’s enough to get the homeowners’ adrenalines pumping.

Now we all know that despite the fact that some homeowners paid a heavy premium for what they considered was a view lot, the developer should have made it abundantly clear that no one was entitled to any particular view. Plants and trees grow and some trees, whether nearby or far away, can over time easily block one’s view. There were no available remedies, as some homeowners learned when they litigated and lost the matter with the developer. That used to be the end the story. Now however, thanks to the P&G Committee, things have changed and the door to maintain one’s unique view has been opened, if only a little.

The homeowner’s concern arose over the certainty that those palm trees positioned along and just beyond the developer built perimeter wall were eventually going to block his view, first by foliage and later by the trunk of the palms as they extend upward some 60 feet in height. As such, these palms were planted on association owned and maintained land, putting the issue squarely in the hands of the board. While the owner refers to these palms as Mexican fan palms, a more likely possibility would seem to be the California fan, also known as the Desert fan palm, due to the larger diameter of the trunk. That’s my guess, not the conclusion of an arborist.

The decision of the P&G Committee was to investigate the matter of the offending palms, not because they might detract from the homeowner’s view, but, mind you, because the palms might not be a suitable planting for the area in question. Perhaps a more suitable planting would be nothing or some shrubs that could be trimmed to prevent growth from reaching the top of the homeowner's rear perimeter block wall. At least those solutions would maintain the homeowner’s view. By the way, since the palms and retaining wall extend for hundreds of feet, the view issue involves at least five homes along the upper portion of Pinto Avenue.

Whether the palms are causing any damage to the block wall or not, all that can be said based on a cursory inspection is that there is evidence of mineral or salt deposits at the base of the wall (see above). That type of staining is almost certainly due to the tree's watering system. Presumably, the amount and direction of water can be controlled or adjusted to mitigate any such concern.

You might ask why any tree might not be a suitable planting, thereby enabling certain homeowners to seek the the association's approval to authorize the trees’ removal. Here are some reasons to consider, understanding that the offending trees must be located on association property for the board to consider taking any action:

The tree must pose some type of threat to association property. This would seem to rule out the threat that the tree or trees are obstructing the homeowner’s view as a sufficient reason to garner the board's attention.
The threat must be real, not hypothetical.
What type of threats are we talking about? While that's yet to be determined by the P&G Committee, here are some possibilities: a) the ultimate size of the trees in relationship to the area where the trees are planted poses a real threat to the lower block wall or upper foundation that exist either above or below the trees; as to how that threat might be established is unclear but may include the threat of toppling from very strong winds or the threat of the root ball applying too much pressure below ground on the lower wall or upper foundation in the event the growth area is too restricted; b) water damage to the wall or foundation. While there is evidence of mineral or salt water stains on block wall adjoining the palms, that condition can be mitigated by adjusting how water is applied to the palm.
My untested conclusion is that a potential growth area of about 10 feet in width may be sufficient for a palm tree given the nature of the root ball system that supports the growth of the tree.
The burden should fall to the homeowner to demonstrate that the palms pose a potential threat, not to the Committee to demonstrate that such a threat does not exist.

Presumably, there are an array of other considerations and issues to investigate. However, it would seems that the Committee may require the services of an expert to evaluate matters pertaining to the stability and viability of the palms in their existing planting. Should that cost be borne by the association or the homeowners who might benefit from that expert evaluation?

Ron Johnson, 26 January 2011