City of Malibu v. California Coastal Commission

Good Law
121 Cal. App. 4th 989·18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1379·2004 Daily Journal DAR 10519·34 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20080
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 23, 2004B168229California3,319 words

Opinion

Opinion

Rubin, J.

The City of Malibu appeals from several orders thwarting its escape from the California Coastal Commission’s “local coastal program” for the city. (Pub. Resources Code, § 30166.5.) We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The City of Malibu (Malibu) lies in California’s coastal zone. Consequently, the California Coastal Act obligated Malibu to develop a “local coastal program” (LCP) to guide its development. (Pub. Resources Code, §§ 30108.6, 30500 et seq.) With an LCP in place, Malibu shoulders the burden of processing coastal development permits; otherwise, the responsibility rests with the California Coastal Commission (the Commission). As of 2000—nine years after its incorporation as a city—Malibu had not implemented an LCP, thus forcing the Commission to continue processing coastal development permits for the city.

Apparently frustrated by the amount of resources it had spent processing applications from Malibu property owners, the Commission sought legislative relief. In September 2000, the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 988, which amended the Coastal Act to add section 30166.5 to the Public Resources Code. The new statute directed the Commission to write an LCP…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.