Cityhood Backers in Malibu Are Stalled

In a setback for Malibu cityhood supporters, Los Angeles County officials have asked a state appellate court to overturn a judge’s order giving the Board of Supervisors until today to conclude an incorporation hearing and set a June cityhood election.

The appeal, filed last week and acknowledged publicly by county officials on Monday, means that it will now be up to the State Court of Appeal to decide whether the long-sought election is delayed further.

Cityhood backers expressed outrage at the county’s latest move.

“It’s another arrogant display of the supreme confidence the supervisors have in their ability to abuse the people of Malibu,” said Walt Keller, co-chairman of the 1,000-member Malibu Committee for Incorporation.

Superior Court Judge Dzintra Janavs last month ordered the supervisors to stop delaying the election and gave them until today to conclude a hearing that the county officials had indefinitely postponed in November. The hearing, required by law so proponents and opponents of cityhood have a public forum for their views, represents the final step that must be completed before an election date can be set.

Graham Ritchie, an attorney for the incorporation group, said he will ask either the appeals court or Judge Janavs to order the supervisors to go ahead and set the election, despite the county’s appeal.

However, lawyers for the county expressed confidence that that was not likely to happen.

“From our view, it would take an affirmative order on the part of the appeals court before the Board (of Supervisors) would be in the position of needing to act, and we don’t believe there is precedent for that,” Assistant County Counsel Bill Pellman said.

A majority of supervisors have resisted Malibu incorporation for years, insisting that an extensive sewer system be approved before a cityhood election takes place.

Cityhood supporters, many of whom regard the county’s sewer plans as a prelude to widespread development of the Malibu coastline, filed a lawsuit against the supervisors in December. They accused the supervisors of violating a state law that sets a 60-day limit on the duration of a hearing before an election date is set.

Although the supervisors began hearing the matter on Oct. 19, they voted 4 to 1 in November to indefinitely postpone a decision on incorporation--and thus conclude the hearing--until construction permits for the sewer system are issued.

In siding with cityhood backers, Judge Janavs rejected the county’s argument that the state law set guidelines recommending--but not necessarily mandating--the 60-day limit on concluding the hearing.

However, in its appeal, the county maintains that the supervisors are not obligated to set an election until they are reasonably certain nothing will stand in the way of the sewer being built.