The ordinance, establishing a right to restore pre-existing views, now goes before the city council.
By Knowles Adkisson / The Malibu Times
The much-debated citywide view restoration ordinance cleared the Malibu Planning Commission last week by a 3-1 vote, sending the ordinance to the city council for final authorization.
The ordinance allows residential and commercial property owners to reclaim one 180-degree “primary view” that has been obstructed by foliage growth within a 1,000-foot radius of their property. To qualify under the ordinance, the view must have been unobstructed when the property was purchased or at the time of the city’s incorporation in 1991, whichever is later. The staff report defines a “primary view” as “visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines.”
A property owner claiming a view obstruction must first consult with the owner of the obstructing foliage or trees informally to try to reach an agreement. If those discussions are unsuccessful, the city would pay for a mediator for up to three hours to help the two sides reach an agreement; a neutral third party who would act as a negotiator.
However, it could become costly for the city, as a city staff report identified 4,030 households as possible candidates for view restoration, each of which would qualify for the subsidized mediation. In the unlikely scenario that all 4,030 households took the city’s offer for mediation, the cost to the city would be between $1.2 million and $1.8 million.
Mediation agreements are not legally binding, and would have to be agreed to by both parties.
The two sides can also enter into arbitration. The arbitrator, usually a retired or active judge, or an attorney, would question both sides and make a decision. The two parties would decide beforehand whether to make the arbitrator’s decision binding or nonbinding.
If all those options fail, the claimant would have to file a civil lawsuit to find resolution.
As part of the ordinance, a View Restoration Committee comprised of citizens would be formed that could issue an official opinion on view restoration disputes. Those opinions could be used as evidence in civil lawsuits. The city would not enforce any view restoration decision, and the owners of foliage found to obstruct views would be responsible for making sure it did not grow back again.
Last week’s decision was the Planning Commission’s third attempt to come to an agreement on the matter, after the absence of commissioners at previous meetings had prevented a majority vote to pass the ordinance. Commissioner Lisa Toledo voted against the measure and commissioner John Mazza abstained due to disagreements about the final form of the ordinance.
Toledo objected to the language of the ordinance offering up to three hours of mediation between parties and paid for by the city. Informal staff estimates put the cost of each three-hour mediation session at between $300 and $450. Toledo also felt the city should charge fees to claimants to pay for work hours done by staff processing claims.
“I don’t know if we spent enough time developing a revenue-neutral process [to the city],” Toledo said.
Toledo also concurred with Mazza, who put forth an unsuccessful motion that would have given greater power to the city to resolve disputes between property owners rather than having them fight it out in court if mediation fails.
Commission Chair Jeff Jennings, who voted in favor of the ordinance with commissioners Joan House and Roohi Stack, said establishing the city as a decision-maker in private view disputes could leave it vulnerable to costly lawsuits and take up staff time dealing with the fallout.
“The early years [of the ordinance] are going to be a nightmare, and I don’t want to see it consume the city as I think it possibly could,” Jennings said.