Developer Accuses City, Coastal Commission of Collusion

Attorneys for a proposed development in Encinal Canyon have accused the city of Malibu and the California Coastal Commission of stalling for time to craft a legal settlement that would doom the embattled project.

A declaration filed in Ventura Superior Court on behalf of VMS Reality Partners of Chicago and its Anden Group subsidiary argues that the commission and the city are working toward a settlement in their lawsuit that would freeze out the developer and lead to the commission’s rescinding of its 1991 approval of the project, a plan for 34 homes on about 254 acres.

The city sued the coastal panel last year because of its approval of the VMS/Anden project, claiming it would violate coastal protection laws and alleging that the developers illegally lobbied coastal commissioners.

But last month, the Coastal Commission voted to pursue a settlement with the city, and VMS/Anden officials now suspect that the two government groups are colluding by stalling for more time. Specifically, VMS/Anden wants the court to consider rejecting Malibu’s request that a court hearing on the lawsuit originally scheduled for July 27 be continued until October.

“We’re asking the judge to look beyond the words and see what’s really going on here,” Anden attorney Judy Davidoff said in a telephone interview last week.

In court papers, Anden called the request “one more in a sequence of dilatory steps” and asked the court not to grant it.

“We don’t want to agree to a continuance if it’s to allow a settlement between the Coastal Commission and the city of Malibu,” Davidoff said.

Above all, VMS/Anden is worried about any form of settlement that would lead to the court remanding the matter to the Coastal Commission, which might then be obliged to rescind its prior approval of the project.

Coastal Commission officials and Malibu City Attorney Michael Jenkins have strongly denied the developer’s suggestions of collusion, but Jenkins said last week that VMS/Anden’s position is understandable.

“They want the case tried on its merits because, with an approval in hand, they don’t want to go back to the Coastal Commission,” he said. “From their view it’s logical.”