Malibu Surfside News

Malibu Surfside News - MALIBU'S COMMUNITY FORUM INTERNET EDITION - Malibu local news and Malibu Feature Stories

Wednesday, May 25, 2011

Staff’s View Measure Gets Planning OK

• Majority Finally Forms at Third Session on Ordinance

BY BILL KOENEKER

The majority of the Malibu Planning Commission last week was able to come up with something other than a tie vote for a proposed citywide view restoration ordinance.
It was the third scheduled meeting on the topic, but was the first when all five commissioners were present.
The commission turned down a proposed ordinance that would have been more closely modeled after a Rancho Palos Verdes law after Commissioner John Mazza had offered the motion.
Commissioner Joan House said she could not support such a measure because she did not think most of the Malibu voters would also support it.
“Measure E did not go far enough. It did not ask if private views should be subsidized by the public treasury. There are lots of people who do not support private restoration with public funds. PV views were designed for everyone. We do have a path to gain views. I support baby steps. This is a baby step. I cannot support what John [Mazza] says that places all of the responsibility on the city,” she said.
Mazza replied he wanted to point out his motion was based on keeping the ordinance revenue neutral, because he did not endorse spending public money on a mediation process.
Commissioner Roohi Stack said she agreed with House and endorsed the staff recommended measure. “We can start in small steps. Palos Verdes is not Malibu. It is not a planned community. We are using public money for private views,” she added.
Commissioner Lisa Toledo said she agreed with Mazza. “It is not necessary for the city to offer free mediation. A good service can be gotten at a good rate. I don’t think we spent enough time on fee structures. I don’t know if we spent enough time on the revenue neutral process. I don’t know if we placed a value on the process,” she added.
Chair Jeff Jennings said the ordinance had been on his mind for a long time and acknowledged it is a difficult problem.
“What we are doing is creating winners and losers. When we rezoned land when we downsized, we did not affect properties already built. I don’t want to put the city in the middle,” he said.
A vote was taken on the Mazza motion and the measure was defeated with Mazza and Toledo voting yes and House, Jennings and Stack dissenting.
Subsequently, the staff-recommended motion was made and the measure was approved on a 3-1-1 vote with Stack dissenting and Mazza abstaining.
Mazza said he was not voting because there was no exemption for folks like Judy Decker, who could be imposed upon by five or six claimants who could potentially cause fiscal damage if they all at one time or another demanded she reduce or remove her foliage and she or others like her had to defend herself. The matter now goes to the city council.
There were various elements in the staff-proposed ordinance that the commissioners found consensus.
Claimants are permitted one primary viewing area with one view.
Any initial and maintenance costs should be borne by the claimant with any costs of new plantings to be borne by the foliage owner. Removal shall be considered only as a last resort, unless volunteered by the foliage owners were among some of those items.
A view restoration ordinance would establish and provide a right of action for property owners in the city to restore pre-existing views from private residences that have been obstructed by landscaping on neighboring properties.
The impetus for the proposed ordinance came from the voters on April 8, 2008 when an advisory measure asked the citizens, “Should the Malibu City Council adopt an ordinance that would require the removal or trimming of landscaping in order to restore and maintain primary views from private homes?” The measure was approved by 60 percent of the voters.
The then city council decided on June, 2008 to create the View Protection Task Force to gather public input on what should be included in the citywide ordinance.
The now defunct task force met for almost a year and ultimately approved a proposed draft ordinance which was forwarded to the planning commission. During the public hearings and workshops there were some speakers who urged the commission to adopt a proposed ordinance which was crafted by the municipal task force charged by the city council to vet the issue.
Speakers were on the task force and suggested that the task force’s recommended ordinance would better serve the city.
The now defunct task force met for almost a year and ultimately approved a proposed draft ordinance while two members of the task force prepared a minority report. One of those panelists was Lou La Monte, now a council member. The other was part-time Malibu resident Suzanne Zimmer, who helped La Monte craft a minority report that differed sharply from the majority’s recommended ordinance.
Task force chair Sam Hall Kaplan, and task force members Barry Tyreman, Leon Cooper, Marilynn Santman, and Lucile Keller all joined forces to urge the commission to recommend adoption of their proposed ordinance.
Speaking about the ordinance that was proposed by the staff and currently before the commission, the task force chair said, “The proposed ordinance is flawed. It is not resident friendly and does not fulfill the measure approved by the voters. The task force ordinance is reasonable…and will best serve the city,” Hall Kaplan said.
It was Jennings and Mazza that led the debate during the various hearings about what the panelists should approve or not approve.
Jennings said the process was asymmetrical in the sense that the claimants, gained views, while the foliage owners simply lost their trees and maybe privacy.
“We should come up with some mechanism that the plaintiff ought to pay for it. The foliage owner should get some relief,” he said.
Mazza said he agreed with one of the speakers, Judy Decker, who urged the commission to include a hardship clause or exemption for senior citizens and those on fixed incomes.
“This doesn’t provide what 60 percent of the people voted for,” he said.
Mazza said he much preferred what he called the “basic guts of the PV ordinance,” such as a mediation paid for by the public and process where the issue, if not resolved would go to the planning commission and it would be appealable to the city council.
Jennings said the city would be creating a right that does not exist and he felt uncertain about the efficacy of mediation “By creating a right that does not exists favors the claimant,” he said.
Mazza said some folks will not go along with it and others will say,” Ok it’s the law now,” he said.
Jennings countered, “It is only the fight that creates the costs,” he said.

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home