
The City Council finalized the right for property owners to preserve views they currently possess, and initiated an exploratory program to consider view restoration.
By Knowles Adkisson / Associate Editor
Malibu residents now have the right to preserve a scenic view from their property in perpetuity. The City Council on Monday held a second reading and officially adopted the view preservation ordinance it passed Feb. 13, and also started the clock ticking on a six-month trial program to gauge interest in a second ordinance that would allow residents to retroactively restore views that existed as far back as 1991, when Malibu became a city.
The preservation ordinance approved Monday allows property owners, effective immediately, to request a primary view determination from the city. For a $260 fee, planning staff will go to the property, determine one 180-degree primary view and take photographs to establish the right to that view in perpetuity. If foliage from neighboring properties grows to obscure that view in the future, the property owner can have the city force the offending neighbor to trim the foliage and restore the view should mediation and arbitration between the two parties fail.
The six-month program looking into view restoration is a compromise reached at the Feb. 13 council meeting, after three councilmembers expressed fears that a view restoration ordinance could lead to costly lawsuits against the City of Malibu. Starting March 26 and ending six months later, Malibu residents interested in claiming a pre-existing view can pay $260 for a view determination and submit photographic evidence proving the existence of the view.
The council wants to determine the number of people the new ordinance will affect, and the amount of effort and work required to determine the view. By determining the overall number of applications, it is hoped the council can calculate the potential legal fees the city would face should it pass a view restoration ordinance, which could potentially make the city vulnerable to legal challenges from property owners forced to cut their trees.
“I think it’s important to find out, who does this affect?” Mayor Laura Rosenthal said.
City staff will also pick two or three applications and go through the process of confirming whether or not the view existed. The applications will be used as test cases to gauge the cost of staff time.
At the end of the six months, the council will either craft a new view restoration ordinance, or decide not to if the potential costs to the city are judged to be too great. If it decides against adding a view restoration ordinance, property owners will be refunded the $260 they spent applying for view restoration permits.
Rosenthal, who supports a view restoration ordinance, believes that “hundreds of people” will apply for view restoration and an ordinance will ultimately happen.
“I have faith that in six months the city will pass a view restoration ordinance,” Rosenthal said.
One dynamic that could throw a curveball in the process is the uncertainty over who will be on the City Council when the six-month program concludes. There are three open seats on the council in next month’s municipal elections, at least two of which will be occupied by new faces with John Sibert the only councilmember running for re-election.
Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich, who is term-limited, wished the future council good luck.
“Six months from now you’re going to have a lot of fun,” Ulich said with irony.
The council appropriated $5,256 from the city’s General Fund to send direct mail to all property owners in the city and to run advertisements in both city newspapers for two weeks to notify residents of the 6-month program. Information about the program will also be placed on the city website, in its newsletter and on its Twitter and Facebook pages.
Mud-slinging over lagoon continues
Despite a City Council allocation of $25,000 Jan. 23 to hire an independent scientific organization to review conflicting science put forth by supporters and opponents of the project to reshape the Malibu Lagoon, an organization has still not been chosen as neither side has been able to agree on a mutually acceptable candidate.
While the council does not have authority to stop the project, many of its opponents have criticized the council for not taking a public stance either for or against it. The $25,000 allocation was urged by Councilmember John Sibert, who is running for re-election in April, as a way to debunk false claims and take a position based on science. The project is scheduled to begin June 1.
Activist Robert “Roy” van de Hoek, who in the past has run unsuccessfully for City Council, said during public comment there had been a “tainting” to the selection process by virtue of the fact that Sibert also serves on the Santa Monica Bay Restoration Commission, which supports the project.
Sibert angrily denounced the claims, and spoke for several minutes about the various scientific positions he had held in the past and the good deeds he had done in those positions.
“There’s no way that this has been tainted by me,” Sibert said.
Ulich, who opposes the Lagoon project, urged her colleagues to place an item allocating $50,000 to fight the project on a future agenda.
Sibert said he did have doubts about the project, and said he would be “willing to consider something else [in opposition to the project]” if California State Parks did not answer those doubts.