Malibu’s Bid for Cityhood Facing New Roadblocks

Despite an impressive victory in the state Legislature last week, Malibu cityhood backers may be in for a rude awakening in their quest to speed incorporation of the seaside community.

On the surface, it would appear that only Gov. George Deukmejian’s signature on a measure that swept both houses of the Legislature without opposition stands in the way of Malibu becoming a city in the near future. The bill nullifies a county bid to postpone until March the incorporation that voters approved in June.

However, in their ecstasy over the legislative triumph, Malibu cityhood boosters may have underestimated Los Angeles County’s chances of stalling cityhood long enough to start work on a controversial $43-million sewer system there.

County officials, who are pressing the governor to veto the bill, have hinted that even if he signs it, they still have a few arrows in their quiver and will not give up.

By law, the County Board of Supervisors must adopt a final resolution confirming the incorporation before cityhood can occur, and a lawyer for the county indicated that officials may delay doing so to gain extra time to start work on the sewer.

When asked about the matter in an interview last week, Bill Pellman, assistant county counsel, said, “That is a possibility.”

Pellman also hinted that if the bill, sponsored by Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita), becomes law, the county may challenge it in court. County lawyers intend to “explore the possibility” that the measure may be unconstitutional, he said.

A Deukmejian aide said the measure reached the governor’s desk Friday. By law, Deukmejian has 12 days to act on it. Observers have suggested that if there is a veto, it would probably come after the legislative session ends Friday, to avoid a possible override.

“We’re hopeful and optimistic that the governor will sign the bill,” said Mike Caggiano, a member of the City Council that was elected in June by Malibu voters but still has no city to run. “And if he does, and the county tries to pull something else, we’re confident that a judge would frown on their shenanigans.”

Unlike the County Board of Supervisors, which has fought the cityhood for three years while advancing its sewer plan, the governor enjoys a measure of popularity in Malibu. Voters there gave him 54% of the vote, to Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley’s 41%, in the 1986 gubernatorial election.

However, with the county sewer plan possibly hanging in the balance, supervisors have sent the governor a letter urging a veto. Two of the supervisors who have pushed hardest for the sewer, Deane Dana, whose district includes Malibu, and Mike Antonovich, have close personal ties to the governor.

Asked about their efforts to persuade the governor, a spokesman for Dana said that the supervisor would have no comment. Antonovich, through a spokesman, repeated his disdain for the legislation.

The supervisors’ remaining role in the incorporation matter, while essential, is a ministerial act that would attract little attention under ordinary circumstances.

But with the county racing to begin construction of the sewer, it could become a key element in the county’s strategy, since state law specifies no time limit for the supervisors to confirm the incorporation.

Even a modest delay could help the county’s cause. After having been rebuffed in July, county officials are to go before the California Coastal Commission in November for permission to expedite the sewer construction without waiting for other approvals that ordinarily could take several months.

If the commission approves, county officials hope that work could begin immediately, with Malibu’s government-in-waiting, unable to take office until incorporation, powerless to prevent it.

The unofficial City Council turned to the Legislature three weeks ago, after a state appeals court had earlier upheld the county supervisors’ authority to delay the incorporation date until March.

County officials have long argued that a sewer system is needed in Malibu. Staff studies, they say, document a significant health hazard because of discharges from malfunctioning septic tanks.

Opponents of the sewer system, who helped win widespread voter approval for cityhood, insist that the findings are bogus. All five council members oppose the sewer plan on the grounds that it is too big, too costly and would encourage too much development.

As part of the Local Agency Formation Commission approval of Malibu’s cityhood bid last year, the county is to retain jurisdiction over the sewer system for up to 10 years after incorporation. But sewer opponents, and even some LAFCO members, have said that the provision may be difficult to enforce.

Meanwhile, the unofficial council members complain about the lack of cooperation from the county on matters related to cityhood.

For example, although it is widely assumed that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department will provide service to the new city, Malibu officials say the county has been slow to arrange contract negotiations.

“Each time we try to set up talks, our phone calls are answered by one of the county lawyers,” Caggiano said.

However, Pellman, the county lawyer, denied that the county has been uncooperative. “Because of the litigation, I would say it is only appropriate that one of us should respond to their calls,” he said.

BACKGROUND

Amid widespread opposition to the county’s plans to install a sewer system there, Malibu residents voted overwhelmingly in June to approve cityhood for the coastal community. Eager to start construction of the sewer before a new Malibu government has the chance to block it, however, county supervisors delayed the actual incorporation date until next March. A Superior Court judge in Los Angeles ruled that the supervisors did not have the authority to do so, but a state appeals court disagreed, ruling in the county’s favor. Cityhood backers have appealed to the California Supreme Court, but with no guarantee that the high court will consider the matter soon, they turned to the state Legislature in a bid to speed incorporation.