Final vote still to come in February, could still be changed.
By Knowles Adkisson / The Malibu Times
In a surprising reversal, a divided Malibu City Council on Monday voted in favor of view restoration after previously appearing to oppose it. The 3-2 vote directs city staff to prepare a final citywide view ordinance that would give property owners the right to claim obstructed views that existed either at the time of the city’s incorporation in 1991 or when they purchased their property, whichever is more recent. The council will make a final decision on the ordinance at its Feb. 13 meeting, when more changes are possible.
Councilmember John Sibert broke a 2-2 deadlock when he added his assent to the measure, over the protests of Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte and Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich. La Monte argued in September, the last time the council discussed the view ordinance, that view restoration could subject the city to costly lawsuits from irate homeowners, and that the city should only insist on view preservation from today forward. At the time, Sibert indicated he agreed with La Monte’s general position, but changed his mind after sounding clearly conflicted.
Sibert said that without knowing how many people would actually take advantage of view restoration, it was difficult to say how expensive the legal costs could be to the city.
“Lou said it could bankrupt the city. I don’t know that,” Sibert said. On the other hand, Sibert said he also had no way of knowing what potential litigation costs would be until people actually started to apply to the city to have their views restored.
“What did Nixon call it, the silent majority?” Sibert said. “I think we need to know what this silent majority wants.”
Sixty percent of Malibu voters in 2008 voted in favor of an ordinance requiring the removal or trimming of landscaping “in order to restore and maintain primary views from private homes.”
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich said property owners who allowed their trees to grow before the measure was passed in 2008 had done nothing wrong, and that to now require them to cut their trees would be an invasion of privacy.
“I have a problem with drafting an ordinance taking away what I see as a property right,” Ulich said.
But Mayor Laura Rosenthal and Councilmember Jefferson Wagner, who support view restoration, disagreed.
“I also think that it’s a property right to have a view that you’ve had before,” Rosenthal responded. “I also understand what you’re saying, but we need to find a balance. And if we can find a balance that somebody does not lose their privacy, but that others gain a view, I think it’s a win-win.”
Under the current draft ordinance, if property owners fail to come to an agreement between themselves through either mediation or arbitration, the Malibu Planning Commission would be the governing body in view disputes.
Residents wishing to claim a pre-existing view could submit an application to the city. In order to pay for staff time spent processing the applications, claimants would have to pay an application fee that has been loosely estimated at between $5,000 and $7,000. The Planning Commission would then make a view determination, which could be appealed by either the applicant or the foliage owner to the city council for another fee.
Speakers during public comment mostly supported the idea of view restoration. One resident whose view has been obstructed says that after a majority of citizens specifically voted for view restoration in 2008, “it would be fraud to not do restoration.”
Another argued that trying to determine whether or not a view existed as far back as 1991 was nigh impossible and would create chaos.
“A retroactive view ordinance will create a lot of angst in our community and surprise a lot of people who never planned for it,” the woman said.
Much of the resistance to the idea of claiming retroactive views centered around the difficulty in proving whether a view existed in the past or not.
According to the ordinance, view claimants must present evidence their view previously existed. Some pieces of accepted evidence include: statements from arborists on the age of trees, photographs, prints, negatives or slides. Photographic evidence must be either date-stamped or otherwise prove its age.
The council could still decide to remove the restoration language at its Feb. 13 meeting. Rosenthal urged property owners to contact the city if they plan on taking advantage of the proposed ordinance.
“We’d like to hear from you, and we’d like to hear from you at the planning department,” Rosenthal said.
Interested residents may contact Assistant Planner Ha Ly for more information at hly@malibucity.org.
During the meeting, the council also approved an 18-foot maximum tree height for trees that grow in a neighbor’s primary view corridor. It also agreed that view determinations should run with the land, so that if a view determination is made and the property is subsequently sold, the new property owner retains the right to the view.
Malibu City Council actions
– The council directed staff to prepare a final version of a citywide view restoration ordinance, to be voted on at its Feb. 13 meeting
– Voted against placing the words “In God We Trust” at Malibu City Hall. The motto “E Pluribus Unum” will instead be considered as a replacement at a future meeting.
– Approved changes to the city’s Local Coastal Program suggested by the California Coastal Commission that pave the way for field lights at Malibu High School.