The eclectic locale of families, settled retirees and surfers young and old that calls Malibu home is finally united behind a single cause: its ocean view.
Though the Malibu City Council voted 3-2 in favor of a view preservation ordinance at its public meeting on Monday, Feb. 13, the council will not decide on the contentious restoration ordinance for up to six months. The supported ordinance dictates that residents are entitled to retain the views they currently have. The proposed restoration ordinance, which would potentially authorize property owners to restore views obstructed by neighboring landscape, is pending community discussion and legal considerations by the council.
Effective immediately after the view ordinance’s passage, residents may pay a $260 fee for the planning committee to physically survey their property and take photos of the primary views. The photos will establish the homeowner’s rights to a view. Should neighboring landscape/foliage obstruct the view in the photos, the property owner may ask the city to intervene or engage in forced mediation and arbitration with the offending party.
The controversial view restoration ordinance, which will engage city council discussion in the weeks and months to come, is not a new issue on the minds of Malibu residents. According to the Malibu Times, 60 percent of locals voted in 2008 in favor of an advisory measure that asked if the city council should adopt an ordinance requiring the removal or trimming of foliage “in order to restore and maintain primary views from private homes.”
Since this vote initialized view ordinance discussions, the city council organized 31 public meetings and six city council meetings on the topic.
Mayor Laura Rosenthal and Councilmember Jefferson Wagner used the 2008 vote as their justification in support of a view restoration ordinance, while Councilmember and Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte and Councilmember Pamela Conley Ulich had their doubts. Considering granting restoration rights as far back as 1991 could result in lawsuits against the city, according to La Monte and Conley Ulich.
Fellow Council member John Sibert shared this concern, and expressed his uncertainty in the Feb. 13 discussion.
“I don’t know whether the [legal] risk to the city is $600,000 or $6 million,” Sibert said at the Feb. 13 council meeting.
Property value is one of the key issues playing a role in the view ordinance debate. Homeowners and real estate professionals believe the loss of an ocean view risks severe slashes in a property’s ticket price.
Jennine Kidd, vice president of Secure One Properties, has served the Malibu and surrounding community for more than 25 years as a property manager. According to Kidd, a backyard that no longer has an ocean view can cause property value to plummet anywhere from $200,000 to $1 million.
“It’s like having a room that’s on the [Las Vegas] strip versus a room that overlooks the dumpsters,” Kidd said. “It takes away from profitability, leasability, marketability and general appeal. I definitely think that Malibu should not allow people to obstruct the views of their neighbors.”
The City of Carmel, a small beach community in Monterey County similar to Malibu, recently underwent a similar initiative, according to Kidd. The city council determined that neighboring homes could not obstruct the view of surrounding properties.
“People move to Malibu for the views — that’s the main attraction,” Kidd said. “If neighbors build a fortress around the house, it’s going to cause problems.”
Kidd has faced those “problems” first hand, when a property she managed in neighboring West Hills had its impressive city and canyon view obstructed by landscape. When the homes were purchased brand new, the landscaping was not mature. But after 10 to 12 years, residents started losing their views and landscaping restrictions became a hot button issue in the community. Kidd said she was able to work out an agreement between the neighbors without enlisting a professional mediator, which the Malibu City Council listed as protocol in future incidents.
“When people are purchasing a home, they’re paying for that ocean view,” Kidd said. “They’ve paid for that. When someone takes it away, it’s the responsibility [of the city] to respect that and not allow [obstruction].”
However, Kidd said she believes it should be a community standard to preserve a property’s view at the time of purchase. The ordinance should state that trees cannot exceed a certain height, according to Kidd, but specifics depend on the property since “every lot is a little bit different.”
“It is time to [have an ordinance],” Kidd added. “[An ocean view] is the lifestyle of Malibu. It’s the same in any upscale community… People move there for the ocean.”
Not all Malibu residents share Kidd’s views. Despite the resounding support for the ordinance at the Feb. 13 city council meeting, several residents spoke out against the ordinance — fearing that the conflict may hurt the Malibu community as similar ordinances have affected other beach cities.
“This city of ours will forever change by the passing of this ordinance,” resident Judy Decker said at the meeting. “We have all lived in peace, please find a way of keeping it that way with not passing this ordinance.”
In 2000, the community of Rancho Palos Verdes experienced strain and conflict when city officials began to enforce the View Restoration and Preservation Ordinance, originally passed in 1989. Though passed into law decades earlier, the ordinance faced numerous legal appeals.
Rancho Palos Verdes residents whose trees were cut down argued that homeowners should not have the right to the atmosphere surrounding their house, and that trees also have a right to life.
Laguna Beach shares the atmosphere of Rancho Palos Verdes and Malibu, but unlike those beach communities the view ordinance it passed in 1997 is non-binding. Due to questions of its constitutionality, the city of Laguna Beach’s law recommends, but cannot require, neighbors to abide by view restoration.
While beach cities across Southern California struggle to define their policies on view restoration, Malibu has already made a significant step in approving the view preservation ordinance. In California, homeowners do not own the airspace around their property unless a local law specifically grants it in writing. Depending on the council’s upcoming view restoration decision, this legislation may be a step in that direction for Malibu.
