Council delays vote on the issue. Three council members say restoring views from the date of the city’s incorporation in 1991 would cause lawsuits; they support preserving current views instead.
By Knowles Adkisson / The Malibu Times
After an hour of public comment and another two hours spent trying to hammer out an agreement on a citywide view restoration ordinance, the Malibu City Council voted Monday to continue the item to a future meeting.
The view restoration ordinance would establish a private right of action for property owners to restore views that existed when the city was incorporated in 1991, but that have since been significantly obstructed by tree and other foliage growth on neighboring properties. The council will likely take up the issue again at its Oct. 24 meeting.
The ordinance stems from an advisory measure in 2008 approved by 60 percent of Malibu voters that asked if the Malibu City Council should adopt an ordinance that would require the removal or trimming of landscaping in order to restore and maintain primary views from private homes.
The ordinance as currently drafted would allow 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 having “visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines.”
The major disagreement among the council centered on the issue of retroactive restoration of views that have become obstructed by foliage growth subsequent to cityhood in 1991. Councilmember Lou La Monte wanted to strike all language about restoring views from the ordinance. He advocated solely enforcing views that currently exist, or view preservation. La Monte said retroactively restoring views would lead to a number of lawsuits that could bankrupt the city.
“Depending on how far back we put this [retroactive view claim], that’s how big our legal fees are going to be, because people are going to sue us,” La Monte said. “If you started this ordinance today, you wouldn’t have any legal fees.”
But Councilmember Jefferson Wagner and Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rosenthal disagreed. Wagner noted that the voters specifically voted to restore views when they approved the referendum by a 60 percent vote in 2008. Rosenthal said she was among those who had lost a view due to neighboring foliage growth.
“If your view is gone, then that doesn’t help you to have the ordinance start today,” Rosenthal said. “I don’t think we should not do the right thing because we might be sued. It’s Malibu. We will be sued.”
Wagner and Rosenthal appeared to be in the minority, with Mayor John Sibert and Councilmembers La Monte and Pamela Conley Ulich supportive of scrapping view restoration in favor of view preservation. Sibert said he had spoken with several people who voted for the view restoration measure in 2008 who, he said, admitted to him they did not at the time expect to have to cut their own trees.
“I think it’s a great idea, but when you get down to the actual reality of it, people don’t want to cut their trees,” Sibert said.
The council did make progress on several issues. One mitigating solution mentioned by Rosenthal that other councilmembers appeared receptive to was a tree height ordinance. The ordinance would specify a maximum height for trees that block primary views of neighbors. Some potential maximum heights discussed were 16 or 18 feet. The tree ordinance would not apply to trees that do not block neighbors’ primary views.
Under the draft ordinance 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. Mediation agreements are not legally binding, and would have to be agreed to by both parties.
But the council appeared to agree not to offer free mediation for neighbors attempting to come to a resolution over tree removal. The mediation sessions had been potentially projected to cost the city more than $1 million, and Sibert and others expressed doubts about how effective the sessions would be.
The two sides in a view dispute 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 informal discussions and arbitration fail, the claimant would have to file a civil lawsuit to find resolution.
The council also agreed that the Planning Commission, and not a newly created view restoration commission, should make view determinations about what views individual property owners were entitled to. Plans for the proposed view restoration commission were scrapped.
City Council Actions
– The song “Malibu, I Love You” by the Henn Family Band was adopted as the City of Malibu’s official song. Mayor John Sibert presented the band with a Certificate of Recognition for their efforts in creating the song.
– The council voted to have Sibert send an official letter from the city requesting the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department consider changing its policy to have local stations allow detainees to be released only between sunrise to sunset, unless when proper transportation has been secured, and to permit all arrestees to retain possession of their purse, wallet and/or cell phones.
As part of the vote, Sibert or another city councilmember will meet in person with Sheriff Lee Baca to follow up. The item was voted on at the request of the public safety commission, upon urging from supporters and family members of Mitrice Richardson.