Vistas Seen as Property Rights : Rancho P.V. Petitioners Demand View Protection Vote

A citywide homeowners group brought a cardboard box full of initiative petitions to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Hall on Thursday, claiming to have more than enough signatures to force an election on its proposed view protection ordinance.

The city attorney, however, has said the measure is probably unconstitutional.

“This is exciting,” said Naomi Phillips, president of the Rancho Palos Verdes Council of Homeowners Assns., as more than 20 residents crowded into a small lobby outside the office of City Clerk Jo Purcell. “We’ve done it and we can be proud of ourselves.”

Phillips said the petitions contain 3,230 signatures, representing 12% of the city’s 27,240 registered voters. The group needs 10% to compel an election under the state Elections Code. Purcell has 30 days to verify the signatures.

The association is aiming for the November general election ballot, but Purcell said a code interpretation will be needed because it calls for a vote at the “next regular municipal election.” The next time candidates for city offices will be elected is November, 1989.

According to Phillips, the initiative would amend an existing height ordinance, which permits structures to be built to a maximum of 30 feet with a variance. The new measure would set 24 feet as the maximum height.

Covers All Views

The initiative, she said, also would add new view protection controls to the city code, including a procedure for removal of foliage if it “exceeds 5% of a view” or is more than 16 feet high. It would apply not only to views of the ocean and the Los Angeles Basin, but to views of valleys, ravines and equestrian trails.

“We did this with tremendous regret,” said Phillips, asserting that attempts by the association to get the City Council to adopt view protection measures have failed. “But we felt we had no recourse. Views are being lost, height variances are granted, and there is a cumulative impact.”

In an analysis of the measure prepared while petitions were being circulated, City Atty. Steven L. Dorsey said “the initiative is probably unconstitutional in several respects, is extremely confusing and will lead to substantial litigation.”

Among other things, Dorsey said the measure does not clarify how its provisions would be integrated into existing regulations, it creates confusion over the definition of “viewing area,” and it gives neighbors unconstitutional “veto powers” over buildings exceeding 16 feet because signatures would have to be obtained from all property owners within 500 feet before a structure could be built. He also took issue with foliage removal requirements, saying this could force people to remove greenery that has existed for years, amounting to “a taking of private property without just compensation.”

Phillips said that the city’s antenna ordinance amounts to regulating private property. “If they can remove antennas, they can remove trees,” she said.

The homeowners said that since October, about 140 people worked to get signatures, mostly at shopping centers or in front of supermarkets. “People looked for us and eagerly signed,” said Stan Mucha, a petition supporter.

However, City Clerk Purcell said 20 people wrote to the city and asked that their names be removed from petitions as the result of publicity over concerns that the initiative could threaten two proposed luxury hotel developments along the coast.