The attorney for a Malibu West family seeking to build an addition onto their home—which they say is designed to house an elderly relative—filed a complaint in LA County Superior Court on Friday, Nov. 18, alleging the city council’s denial of the project violates state law.
Jason and Elizabeth Riddick, represented by David J. Deerson of the Pacific Legal Foundation, filed the petition requesting the city approve their application and pay their attorney’s fees.
Speaking on Tuesday afternoon, Nov. 23, interim Malibu City Attorney John Cotti said he was not yet formally made aware of the lawsuit and could not discuss it or the city’s response.
“We have not yet been served,” Cotti said at the time. Malibu Planning Director Richard Mollica also wrote in an email that he had not been made aware of the legal petition as of Tuesday afternoon.
The Riddicks’ project includes a “414-square-foot attached accessory dwelling unit, 157-square-foot addition and 43-square-foot expansion of a covered porch,” according to documents included in the filing.
The project was recommended for denial by city staff; that recommendation was upheld by the planning commission and city council in separate hearings earlier this year. According to the 522-page staff report prepared for the council meeting, “planning staff reviewed the application and determined that the proposal does not comply with the existing zoning regulations … with respect to required rear and side yard setbacks and the maximum allowed TDSF [Total Development Square Footage] and TILC [Total Impervious Lot Coverage] for the parcel.” In other words, the project is too large and improperly placed on the lot.
In June, the Malibu Planning Commission denied the project, with Jeff Jennings, John Mazza, and Kraig Hill voting in favor of denial and Dennis Robert Smith and David Weil dissenting. During a September appeal to the Malibu City Council, the application was again denied by a 3-0 vote, with council members Mikke Pierson (a neighbor) and Bruce Silverstein (a business associate) recusing themselves from the hearing and members Paul Grisanti, Karen Farrer, and Steve Uhring voting in favor of the denial.
In their court filing, the Riddicks argued—among other concerns—that according to the California Coastal Commission, attached ADUs are considered “improvements” to properties and that the city’s local coastal program states that, “’[i]mprovements to existing single-family residences’ are ‘exempt from the requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit.’”
“If the exemption applies to the Riddicks’ application, then the city was required to issue the permit pursuant to state ADU law,” the petition states.
This is a developing story.