The City Council has until Oct. 1 to decide if it wants to petition the state Supreme Court to hear its case against the California Coastal Commission. Some residents say the city can issue coastal permits without jeopardizing its case
By Jonathan Friedman/Assistant Editor
The City Council, meeting on Monday for the first time since the state Court of Appeal ruled Malibu residents do not have the right to vote on a Coastal Commission-drafted Malibu Local Coastal Program, heard passionate speeches from those in favor and against continuing litigation.
The council discussed the issue during closed session; however, no councilmember voiced publicly whether they supported petitioning the California Supreme Court to review the case. The council has until Oct. 1 to decide. A decision will likely come at the next scheduled council meeting on Sept. 27.
Although the residents speaking at Monday’s meeting differed on whether they believed the city should pursue bringing the case to the Supreme Court, most were in agreement that the city needs to start issuing coastal development permits. None have been issued in the city of Malibu, stalling at least 100 projects, since Malibu’s dispute with the Coastal Commission began in September 2002.
“I’m here to urge you to issue permits as soon as possible under the Coastal Commission’s LCP and at the same time appeal while you continue to issue [coastal] permits,” property rights advocate Anne Hoffman said. “It is morally untenable to win our rights on the back of people who need a permit.”
The city has not issued coastal permits because if it did, it would have to issue them based on the Coastal Commission-drafted LCP. City Attorney Christi Hogin has said that would put the city in a position in which it could be looked at as accepting the LCP, jeopardizing its case. She told The Malibu Times last week that policy would continue if the city were to take the case to the next level.
But some speakers said they believed coastal permits could be issued while the city continues with litigation. Others agreed the city should begin issuing coastal permits but, in contrast, accept that the city has lost the battle.
“Appealing the court’s decision regarding the coastal plan will be spending a lot of time and money that won’t accomplish anything,” Realtor Paul Grisanti said. “You’ve fought the good fight now. And it’s over.”
Grisanti added that there is a possibility the city’s fortune could turn around if the state Supreme Court rules in favor of the Marine Forest Society in its case against the Coastal Commission. Marine Forest has challenged the constitutionality of the state agency because of how its members are appointed. A Sacramento Superior Court judge has already ruled in favor of Marine Forest, with the Court of Appeal upholding his decision. The state Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the case sometime soon. If it rules in favor of Marine Forest, some have suggested the Malibu LCP would then become invalid.
Another option the city has is to get the Coastal Commission to approve amendments to the LCP it has submitted. The City Council, with the help of a consultant, wrote the amendments over an 18-month period, submitting them to the Coastal Commission’s Ventura office earlier this year. The Coastal Commission staff has said it will review the amendments and possibly put them before the commission for a vote. That vote will not likely occur until the spring of 2005. Architect Mike Barsocchini said this is what the city should be concentrating on.
Hogin said at Monday’s meeting that even if the council decides to petition the Supreme Court to review the case, the chance of the court agreeing to do it is slim. She said if Malibu does decide to do this, it would hear from the Supreme Court on whether it was taking on the case in about 90 to 100 days.