The League of California Cities files a brief in favor of the city’s lawsuit against the California Coastal Commission, and says that for Malibu residents not to have the right to vote on its LCP would deprive the city of rights that other coastal cities have.
By Jonathan Friedman/Staff Writer
The California League of Cities has filed a brief with the California Court of Appeals in support of Malibu’s case against the California Coastal Commission. The city is seeking the right to put the Coastal Commission-adopted Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) before the voters of Malibu. In the League’s brief, Solana Beach City Attorney Celia A. Brewer wrote that the League had an interest in this case because it has the potential to fundamentally affect the constitutional relationship between California cities and the state Legislature.
The League is a significant ally for the city, as it a major organization founded on the principle of local control. All 476 of California’s cities are included in its membership, and the league is looked upon as the voice of California cities.
The brief states that for Malibu residents not to have the right to vote on its LCP would deprive the city of rights that other coastal cities have, and Malibu citizens’ rights of self-determination. Brewer further wrote that the Coastal Commission has no legislative authority to adopt an LCP, but rather only to approve or reject one based on consistency with the goals of the Coastal Act.
The Coastal Commission adopted an LCP it drafted for Malibu in September 2002. With many Malibuites angry at what they considered to be an extremist document, they quickly gathered more than 2,400 signatures in a petition to request the LCP go before the city’s voters. The Coastal Commission challenged Malibu’s ability to do that. Brewer wrote that the state only has the ability to override a people’s right to a referendum in matters of statewide concern. She argued this situation could not meet that standard, since the contents of the Malibu LCP only affect the people of Malibu.
Brewer further challenged the Coastal Commission’s ability to adopt an LCP by stating that California’s Constitution places the cities in charge of local regulations, including land-use laws, as long as they are not in conflict with the state’s general law. She dismissed a statement made by Judge Allan J. Goodman in his decision (which is now on appeal) that the Coastal Commission’s adoption of the LCP was appropriate because the state had an interest to immediately put into effect an LCP for a critically sensitive area of the coastline. She wrote that the state failed to prove Malibu’s coastline was any more sensitive than those of other cities still without an LCP.
Councilmember Jeff Jennings said he was pleased to see Malibu’s case was gaining interest from those outside the city.
John Saurenman, supervising deputy attorney general for the state, told The Malibu Times that he will not guess as to how the League’s brief will affect the case. The Coastal Commission will soon be able to respond to the League’s brief with its own, further delaying the case from actually going before the court for arguments. However, delays are nothing new. The Coastal Commission asked for extensions in writing its original briefs for the case. City Attorney Christi Hogin had hoped the case could go before the judge in early 2004, with a decision coming in late January at the latest. If that were to happen, and if Malibu won, the LCP could go before the voters in April. Hogin told The Malibu Times that is most likely impossible now.
While the briefs are being written back and forth, and a final decision continues to be delayed, a number of residential, business and municipal construction projects remain in limbo. Since the conflict between the Coastal Commission and the city began, a freeze has been put on the issuance of all coastal development permits. Several times, the City Council has been approached at meetings by angry residents, architects and land-use attorneys demanding a quick solution to the problem so construction can continue. Although the councilmembers have expressed sympathy to those in the so-called stopped-up development pipeline, they have been reluctant to shy away from their quest to bring the LCP before the voters because of an obligation to those who signed the petition.
Last year, the city tried to gain the right to grant coastal development permits without putting the city’s case with the Coastal Commission in jeopardy. But the court rejected the city’s request.