Judge Dismisses Malibu’s Lawsuit in Turf War between City, SMMC and CCC

• City Attorney Claims ‘Victory’ despite SMMC Assertion that Municipal Legal Action Was Not ‘Ripe’

BY BILL KOENEKER

Both sides are claiming victory following judicial action on a lawsuit the City of Malibu filed against Peter Douglas, the executive director of the California Coastal Commission, over his decision to allow the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy’s LCP amendment override to proceed.
The court found that the “preliminary determination that the proposed LCP qualifies for the overide process was but one phase of an administrative process that has to yet run its course.”
The conservancy, in a press release, claimed the court “effectively dismissed a lawsuit” filed by the City of Malibu to stop the Coastal Commission from considering the SMMC’s proposed amendment to Malibu’s LCP.
However, City Attorney Christi Hogin contends that this is a victory for the city because “the city’s purposes in the lawsuit were served, and we are satisfied.”
The city had argued that the Coastal Commission override regulation that authorized the Conservancy to file the LCP amendment directly with the coastal agency also authorized the executive director to make the final decision that the amendment meets criteria required to file directly with the commission.
The court disagreed, sustaining a demurrer to the complaint on the grounds that the city must proceed through the administrative process before going to court.
Laurie Collins, chief staff counsel for the SMMC, suggested that, as a regulatory body, the City of Malibu should have known that its case was not ripe, meaning it was too soon to file litigation.
Hogin defended the action she took, saying the lawsuit was filed “in an abundance of caution because the Coastal Commission’s own regulations say that the director’s determination is ‘final’ and generally a ‘final’ administrative decision must be challenged within 60 days.”
Hogin said that, as a result of its legal action, the city established its rights without additional need for litigation while concurrently addressing the administrative proceedings.
The city had filed a writ of mandate to challenge Douglas’s determination that the Conservancy’s park plan was eligible for an override procedure or what Hogin called “the fast track.”
The city attorney said she was concerned that if the city did not file suit, it might have waived its objections to the “final” decision.
The Coastal Commission demurred to the complaint, saying that the city could take the matter up with the commission itself.
“The city had sued and defended the action on the grounds that the commission did not have to find the proposal was ‘unanticipated’ at the time that it hears the override proposal,” added Hogin, saying, if Douglas’ decision is final, the city would not have the opportunity to challenge it later.
The court found the issue was not ripe because the commission cannot hear the override petition unless it first determines that Douglas’ decision was correct.
Hogin said it was to the city’s advantage that the hearing put the commission’s and conservancy’s lawyers on record acknowledging that the commission only had jurisdiction to hear the override proposal if Douglas properly found that the matter was unanticipated at the time that the LCP was under consideration.
“Basically [this is] a happy ending for us, although oddly achieved by the dismissal of the lawsuit,” concluded Hogin.
The legal wrangling is over a park plan or LCP amendment sought by the SMMC that calls for overnight camping in several of Malibu’s coastal canyons.
The city removed the provisions of camping from the conservancy’s plan and forwarded the document to the coastal panel.
However, the SMMC utilized a little-known CCC policy that allows for what is called an LCP amendment override, which is what sparked the litigation.