Calabasas Cityhood Backers Accuse LAFCO of Favoritism

Calabasas cityhood backers charged Wednesday that county authorities unfairly judged their unsuccessful incorporation effort--imposing harsher conditions on them than on applicants from Malibu and Diamond Bar.

The favoritism complaint was made during a meeting between Calabasas cityhood committee leaders and representatives of the Local Agency Formation Commission, the Los Angeles county counsel’s office and the 5th Supervisorial District office.

County officials disputed the charge but refused to discuss the allegations with angry Calabasas residents.

The meeting came just hours after the commission approved Malibu’s cityhood request, setting the stage for a possible March election by beach-area residents. Earlier this month, Diamond Bar’s application was temporarily delayed by a minor boundary dispute.

Commissioners voted down the cityhood request from Calabasas residents Feb. 28. Since then, incorporation backers have been seeking ways to resurrect their three-year-long drive for self-rule.

In April, the Calabasas committee sued the commission, alleging that panel members denied the incorporation request based on inaccurate financial projections that the city would be $450,000 in debt after its first year of existence.

Ruth Benell, chief executive officer for the commission, has steadfastly denied making a mistake in Calabasas cost estimates she provided to the commission. During Wednesday’s closed-door meeting with Calabasas committee members, Benell refused to elaborate, however.

“I was advised not to answer questions while the Calabasas people’s lawsuit is still pending,” Benell said.

“They were complaining about the treatment they got. They wanted to know if they’d get better treatment if they file another proposal,” Benell said. “My answer to that was as long as you have a lawsuit filed against LAFCO, it would not serve any purpose to file another cityhood application.”

Meeting Requested

Calabasas leaders said they asked for Wednesday’s meeting after noticing that Malibu and Diamond Bar cityhood applications seemed to be sailing through the LAFCO process. Commissioners must approve budget estimates and boundaries before an incorporation election can be called by county supervisors.

“I sat in on some of the Malibu and Diamond Bar meetings and listened with my mouth open,” because the other two cities appeared to receive such lenient treatment, said Doris La Violette, vice president of the Calabasas cityhood committee.

“I’m glad the Malibu people came out on top, but they had a 33% deficit predicted. Ours was about 24%. We don’t know what to read into some of these things.”

La Violette said the commission counted taxes expected to be collected from a proposed Point Dume shopping center in Malibu’s revenue projections. When Calabasas had sought to include taxes from a future shopping center, “the commission called it wishful thinking on our part,” she said.

Calabasas committee members are anxious to resume the cityhood campaign, although they have not discussed whether they should drop the lawsuit to speed things up, she said.

“We think it’s important to resolve the issue of fire protection costs and that’s something that’s in the suit,” La Violette said.

Brush-fire protection costs were estimated in Benell’s reports at $675,800. If Calabasas wins the lawsuit, it will not have to pay that sum--which means it would more than make up the proposed city’s projected budget deficit.