County Hints at New Delay for Cityhood : Malibu: The Coastal Commission’s decision to delay efforts to build a sewer system prompted a lawyer to say the March incorporation date is ‘not etched in stone.’

Stung by an unexpected setback in their bid to speed construction of a controversial sewer system in Malibu, Los Angeles County officials have hinted that they may try to delay Malibu’s becoming a city until 1992.

Saying that a March 28, 1991, incorporation date set by the Board of Supervisors was “not etched in stone,” a lawyer for the county said this week that the county may want to reexamine the date if its efforts to build the proposed $43-million sewer system remain stalled.

“Under the applicable statute, (a further delay) of cityhood is an option,” Assistant County Counsel Bill Pellman said.

The county’s new stance follows a decision by the staff of the California Coastal Commission that will delay the county’s request to speed construction of the sewer until at least December.

The county had hoped to go before the state panel next month for approval to start the work without having to wait for incremental approvals that could take several months.

But after a conservation agency raised new questions about the sewer’s impact on Malibu’s environment, the commission staff said it will need more information about the project before scheduling a hearing. The staff ruled out the possibility of the matter being on the commission’s agenda in November.

Meanwhile, cityhood backers received a setback of their own this week when the California Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that upheld the county’s authority to delay incorporation until March.

Although voters overwhelmingly approved cityhood in June, supervisors delayed actual incorporation until next March in a bid to start construction of the sewer before a new city government has the chance to block it.

Pellman, the county attorney, expressed pleasure with the high court’s action and called the appeal by the Malibu Committee for Incorporation “another example of where the people of Malibu were misguided in their attempts to get the world to march to their tune.”

In a separate lawsuit, the unofficial City Council has asked the high court to order the supervisors to clear the way for cityhood immediately on grounds that voters’ rights have been violated.

The Supreme Court this week assigned the case to the same three-judge panel in Los Angeles that ruled in favor of the county in the incorporation group’s lawsuit. The appeals court has not indicated whether it will hear the matter.

Pellman’s remarks about the incorporation date were in sharp contrast to those of just two weeks ago, when Pellman dismissed any attempt by the county to delay cityhood beyond March as “not in the cards.”

Asked about the apparent shift of strategy, Pellman said the change came about after the latest snag with the Coastal Commission.

He accused cityhood activists of pressuring the Coastal Commission staff to delay consideration of the sewer matter.

The prospect of Malibu’s incorporation being delayed beyond March, meanwhile, touched off an angry reaction from cityhood supporters, many of whom oppose the county’s sewer plans as a prelude to widespread development of the Malibu coast.

“I think (county officials) have finally gone too far, even by their own outrageous standards,” Mayor-elect Walt Keller said.

Keller predicted that “the mere suggestion of such a thing” will benefit Malibu’s leaders when they return to the state Legislature in December in another attempt to void the county’s delay of cityhood. Members of the unofficial City Council have said that they hope to have legislation ready to present to a new governor in January.

Gov. George Deukmejian last month vetoed a measure by state Sen. Ed Davis (R-Santa Clarita) that would have voided the delay. In his veto message, Deukmejian said that since voters were aware when they went to the polls that cityhood was to occur in March, it would be inappropriate to now change the incorporation date.

Cityhood advocates accused the governor of caving in to county officials, who lobbied hard in favor of the veto.

In an interview, Pellman said that since the March 28 date was not on the actual ballot measure voters approved, despite being included in the official ballot argument in favor of cityhood, supervisors would not be bound by the date.

As a final ministerial act, supervisors must adopt a resolution confirming the election results. Pellman said that, in the absence of a specific incorporation date being included on the ballot, supervisors may, if they wish, specify a date of their choosing as part of that resolution.

He said state law enables supervisors to choose a date up to one year from the time the Local Agency Formation Commission records the necessary documents verifying the county’s intent to turn over authority to the new city.

Depending on how long it takes LAFCO to complete its duties once supervisors adopt the resolution, the county could, if it chooses, delay Malibu’s incorporation until sometime in the spring of 1992, he said.

“I’m not suggesting that’s what will happen, I’m merely explaining what the options are in keeping with the law,” he said. “Obviously, the county is very much interested in seeing that the sewer is built.”

In such a scenario, the three members of Malibu’s City Council who were elected in June to two-year terms would be in the unusual position of having their terms expire before they ever took office.

“It’s so absolutely appalling and ridiculous that it’s hard to imagine such a thing,” said Councilwoman-elect Carolyn Van Horn, one of the three members. Keller and Councilman Larry Wan, as the two top vote-getters, were elected to four-year terms.

The county’s snag with the Coastal Commission came after the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority questioned the county’s plan to dump up to 1.3-million gallons of effluent a day from a planned waste treatment facility near Pepperdine University into nearby Corral Creek.

The agency operates closely with the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to protect and preserve parkland in the Santa Monica Mountains.

Its officials say that the property where the effluent would be emptied is owned by entertainer Bob Hope but that the conservation authority has an agreement with Hope giving it the right to use 173 acres--including the portion next to the proposed sewer plant--for future parkland.

Officials of the agency were displeased when they learned about the county’s plans for using the creek, saying they should have been consulted, and have questioned the wisdom of discharging effluent into the creek.

In a letter to the Coastal Commission, Joe Edmiston, the executive director of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, said the county had no legal right to use the property without the agency’s approval and asked that the commission staff hold up the processing of the county’s application.

However, Harry Stone, the county’s deputy director of public works, said Edmiston was mistaken about the county’s plans.

“The area we intend to use is on a piece of property near (Pacific Coast Highway) that is either owned by Caltrans or is under easement to Caltrans,” Stone said. “We don’t believe the (conservation authority) has any authority over the matter.”

Stone expressed confidence that the county will be able to satisfy the Coastal Commission’s concerns in short order.

“Our aim is to be on their agenda in December,” he said. “That’s certainly what we’re shooting for.”