View Protection Task Force Continues to Move Forward

BY BILL KOENEKER

The Malibu View Protection Task Force will participate in a mock case this week and use the opportunity to revise the proposed ordinance components and previous decisions they have made about the proposed law.
Their facilitator, Coleen Berg, prepared a summary of the task force decisions to date, which opens a window on the workings of the panel over the past several months.
Calling it the Malibu View Restoration/Preservation Ordinance, the new law would “permit a resident’s view to be restored to that which existed at the time the homeowner purchased his or her property. If at the time of purchase the property has no view whatsoever, they may not under this ordinance apply for view relief.”
Once a property owner has obtained what the task force is calling a view restoration/preservation order, they have the right under the proposed law to restore their view to the “standards and conditions stated on the order.”
The panel came up with definitions, such as what constitutes a viewing area—“that portion of the residence (excluding bathrooms, closets, garages and hallways) from which the primary view is observed. A property shall have only one primary view area. The primary view area shall be determined by the applicant and the governing party.”
Some of the definitions are much like what the city has already established: “The primary view area shall be assessed from a single fixed location and direction in the structure. The width of the primary view corridor shall extend the entire width of the protected primary view not to exceed a maximum of 180 degrees.” The city is the controlling agent for determining the view, but the applicant can appeal.
Foliage is also defined and the panel talked about the criteria used to help determine whether a view is being significantly impaired by foliage.
Such criteria includes the foliage position within the view frame, single component views versus a multi-component view, such as a view of the ocean, pier and canyons contrasted by a single view of the ocean.
“Foliage that entirely obscures one of components of a “multi-component” view is more likely to be found to create significant impairment than foliage that impairs the same degree of view of a ‘single-component’ view,” the Berg report states.
Members agreed that greater weight should be given to prominent landmarks or other significant features, such as views of the “Queen’s Necklace,” piers, and Point Dume.
“As a result foliage which impairs a view of any of historic landmarks is more likely to be found to create significant view impairment,” the report states.
Criteria were also established for restoration action because of a “significant/unreasonable obstruction has occurred.”
The panel came up with a list of 17 “unweighed factors,” in determining or considering appropriate restoration action.
Some examples: Whether removal or trimming of the foliage fill causes an unreasonable infringement of the indoor or outdoor privacy of the foliage owners. Whether trees are protected trees. What is the soil stability provided by the tree or trees considering soil structures, degree of slope and extent of the tree’s root system. Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree owner’s property.
Once it has been determined that there is significant view impairment and trimming or removal is needed, the task force says the city should put in place what they call a restorative action hierarchy.
Meaning removal of a tree should be of the last resort. Actions considered should first include thinning, and or heading of branches where possible, then removal if no other action can be taken. Heading or topping should be preferable to removal. Tree removal should only be considered when all other restorative actions are judged ineffective in restoring the primary view.
The panel also took into account defining various trimming actions and deciding when replacement foliage is appropriate.
Guidelines were also laid out about what actions the homeowner should take before filing a formal application, such as talking to the neighbor, having an arborist’s report made and contacting the neighbor in writing about the concerns of the applicant.
If the matter is not resolved at that step, then panelists have determined that mediation should be the next step. Mediation costs will be the responsibility of the applicant.
The task force has also tentatively decided on what should be the required elements of the application and that the applicant should submit as much evidence as possible.