County May Try to Delay Cityhood for Malibu

Stung by an unexpected setback in their bid to speed construction of a controversial sewer system in Malibu, Los Angeles County officials have hinted that they may try to delay Malibu cityhood until 1992.

Saying that a March 28, 1991, incorporation date set by the Board of Supervisors was “not etched in stone,” a lawyer for the county said this week that the county may want to re-examine the date if its efforts to build the proposed $43-million sewer system remain stalled.

“Under the applicable statute, (a further delay) of cityhood is an option,” Assistant County Counsel Bill Pellman said.

The county’s new stance follows a decision by the staff of the California Coastal Commission that will delay the county’s request to speed construction of the sewer until at least December.

The county had hoped to seek commission endorsement next month to start the work without having to wait for incremental approvals that could take several months.

But after a conservation agency raised new questions about the sewer’s impact on Malibu’s environment, the commission staff said it will need more information about the project before scheduling a hearing. The staff ruled against the matter being on the commission’s agenda in November.

Cityhood backers received a setback of their own this week when the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld the county’s authority to delay incorporation until March.

Although voters overwhelmingly approved cityhood in June, supervisors delayed incorporation until March in a bid to start construction of the sewer before a new city government has the chance to block it.

Pellman expressed pleasure with the Supreme Court action and called the appeal by the Malibu Committee for Incorporation “another example of where the people of Malibu were misguided in their attempts to get the world to march to their tune.”

In a separate lawsuit, the unofficial City Council has asked the high court to order the supervisors to clear the way for cityhood immediately on grounds that voters’ rights have been violated.

The Supreme Court has assigned the case to the same three-judge panel in Los Angeles that ruled in favor of the county in the incorporation group’s lawsuit. The appellate court has not indicated whether it will hear the matter.

Pellman’s remarks about the incorporation date contrasted sharply with statements he made two weeks ago when he said any attempt by the county to delay cityhood beyond March was “not in the cards.”

Pellman said the change occurred after the latest ruling by the Coastal Commission.