The View Protection Task Force Committee is unclear on whether it’s supposed to create an ordinance or just give comments, so it created another committee to find out.
By Nora Fleming / Special to The Malibu Times
In its second meeting, the View Protection Task Force Committee opted to create an ad hoc committee of its own members to meet with an advisor hired by the city to more clearly define the committee’s goals. Meanwhile, residents attending the meeting last Tuesday expressed opposite views over whether a view or privacy was more important, and asked how the city would enforce a view protection ordinance.
Committee Vice Chair Harold Greene, Lou La Monte, Marilynn Santman, Barry Tyerman and Suzanne Zimmer nominated themselves for the subcommittee, after a motion by Greene was unanimously approved at the meeting on Sept. 23.
The ad hoc committee met privately with advisor Coleen Berg on Sept. 29 and will present information at the committee’s next public meeting on Oct. 14. Berg, a view ordinance mediator for the city of Ranchos Palos Verdes, was hired by the city to advise the task force on developing an ordinance.
“Our slate is clean,” Vice Chair Greene said. “We’re not going into this to adopt any specific template, other than put together an ordinance that serves the best interest of Malibu and our local likes and dislikes.”
The View Protection Committee was created after more than 60 percent of Malibu residents voted in April for the council to adopt a view ordinance to protect primary views from property landscaping.
The council in June approved the creation of a 12-member committee, with two nominations per councilmember and two members nominated at large. Rodney Perlman, appointed by City Councilmember John Sibert, became the committee’s 13th member at the last meeting.
From whitewater views to nothing
Several residents attending the view protection committee meeting last week expressed concern over the loss of their views.
“Many people in Malibu West [once] had beautiful whitewater views, now they have nothing,” Malibu West resident Ann Forkeotes said. “I’ve slowly watched the depreciation in value of homes as the views have diminished over time. There needs to be something in effect that controls the views.”
Resident Steve Kovsky said he worried that Malibu’s rural and rustic character would be lost with so much landscaping added to local properties.
One resident argued that privacy was being invaded in order for others to gain views.
Committee member Zimmer read a letter given to her from Dr. David Frankle, a resident, who said a neighbor had cut through and destroyed part of his property to enhance the market value on his property with a better view.
“Privacy is just as important as a view,” Frankle wrote, “Where is the view and who determines it?”
The enforcement of an ordinance was something several committee members mentioned as a problem. Tyerman said the city’s existing hedge law prevents property hedges over six feet tall, though many residents have hedges that are up to 15 feet high.
“The hedge law is a situation where the city has really dropped the ball. The city has laws it’s not enforcing even when complaints are made,” said Tyerman, who added that he was worried about the cost burden of a potential ordinance.
“How do you create a process for getting this done?” committee member Perlman asked. “What is the city’s responsibility in this process?”
“The process is really important and the key to getting a process working is shifting the burden of proof to residents [and not the city],” Perlman added.
Unclear direction
Committee members also discussed how they should organize committee findings and analysis.
“There was confusion on whether [the council] wanted an ordinance or just wanted comments,” said Committee Chair Sam Hall Kaplan, who affirmed that City Attorney Christi Hogin gave the committee the go ahead “to do what we want to do,” whether that be an ordinance, report or bulleted list of points.
Committee member Lucille Keller was in favor of reviewing already written ordinances to generate specifics for Malibu, but others, like Zimmer, disagreed.
The ad hoc committee was instructed to discuss these issues with Berg and to return to the full committee with suggestions on Oct. 14.
Currently, Malibu has only one adopted view related ordinance, No. 317, which specifically deals with Malibu Country Estates. [This ordinance took more than two years to approve].
At its Sept. 8 meeting, the council also required future committee meetings be recorded and aired on Channel 3, due to what was deemed by some to be a heated first meeting and to encourage public involvement in the ordinance process.