Legal dispute over proposed unit for family member goes all the way to state Supreme Court
By Barbara Burke
Special to The Malibu Times
Like many Malibu and American families, Jason and Liz Riddick have undertaken the responsibility of ensuring that Liz’s elderly and ailing mother’s needs are met and they decided that the mother, Renee Sperling, should live with them. Liz serves as Sperling’s primary caretaker.
With three kids, three adults, and pets, the Riddicks’ West Malibu neighborhood home is cramped, which is not only uncomfortable, but also concerning because such close conditions are not recommended for Sperling, who is immunocompromised, according to Sperling’s physicians.
In July 2020, The Riddicks applied for a permit to build “a new 414-square-foot ADU and a 157-square-foot addition to the existing residence that included a new primary bathroom.”
What followed is yet another iteration of the ever-familiar tension between private landowners’ desires to use their property to fit their needs and a local government’s constraints against how private landowners can alter their residences.
On June 7, 2021, following communications between the city and the Riddicks, the city’s Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Riddicks’ request for an ADU permit. The commission concluded that a Coastal Development Permit was required for the project and refused to approve one, finding that the project did “not conform to the Local Coastal Plan as it violates residential development standards for required minimum rear and side yard setbacks and maximum allowed total development square footage and total impervious lot coverage.”
On June 28, 2021, the Riddicks appealed the commission’s denial of their requests for an ADU permit. On Aug. 19, 2021, the City Council denied their appeal.
On Sept. 2, 2021, the Riddicks resubmitted plans to the city, advising that the new plans contained a modification: “[T]here will be no addition to the primary residence. Instead, the proposed space originally put forth as an addition to the primary residence is now designated as part of the ADU.” The Riddicks maintained the revised project was exempt from the CDP requirement, and therefore entitled to ministerial review and approval.
However, the city attorney responded that the proposed project required a CDP, without specifically addressing the Riddicks’ modified plans.
Therefore, the parties became embroiled in litigation. A little bit of procedural history regarding the parties’ litigation helps readers to understand the current status of the Riddick-City of Malibu dispute.
The procedural history of the parties’ litigation
On Nov. 18, 2021, the Riddicks filed a complaint against the city asking the court to rule that the city “had a clear, present, and ministerial duty to review and approve the Riddicks’ ADU permit application, and the Riddicks had a clear, present, and beneficial right to approval of their permit application.”
They asserted that their ADU project was exempt from the CDP requirement and should therefore be approved ministerially under state ADU standards set forth in Gov. Code, § 65852.2.
Chapter 13 of the city’s Local Coastal Plan establishes the process for the review of all development within the city’s coastal zone to ensure that it is consistent with the provisions of the Coastal Act. Section 13.4.1 of that chapter exempts “[i]improvements to existing single-family residences” from the requirement of a CDP, with certain exceptions.
The interpretation of that section’s exemption is at the core of the dispute between the parties. The Riddicks maintain their situation is not within the exemptions in Section 13.4.B, and hence, they should get their permit from the city, which should process the application ministerially. Whereas, the city maintains that its interpretation of those exemptions requires a CDP and further, its interpretation of the statute is entitled to great deference by reviewing courts.
The trial court sided with the Riddicks. On the issue of giving deference to the city’s interpretation of Section 13.4.1, the trial court explained that “the proper interpretation of the [section] is a question of law for the [c] ourt’s independent interpretation. The [c]court is certainly not bound by the city’s (or commission’s) interpretation. Furthermore, the city’s interpretation is not a long-standing opinion on this issue. In fact, the city (and commission) ha[ve] admittedly reversed course with this decision. These circumstances weigh against finding deference.”
As to whether the language of Section 13.4.1 unambiguously exempted the Riddicks’ project from the CDP requirement, the trial court concluded that “the plain language of the statute fits [the Riddicks’] interpretation far better than the city’s interpretation.”
Accordingly, on Sept. 19, 2022, the trial court entered a judgment for the Riddicks directing the city to process the Riddick’s application for an ADU.
However, the city appealed. The appellate court, in a published and precedential opinion, also ruled for the Riddicks on this issue, ruling the Riddicks need not apply for a coastal development permit.
The parties’ battle continues as the city seeks discretionary review in the California Supreme Court
On March 13, the city issued a statement saying, “At issue in the cause of action decided in the Riddicks’ favor was the city’s interpretation of the language in its Local Coastal Program (LCP). Even though the California Coastal Commission published a memorandum that supported the city’s interpretation, the Court of Appeal gave no deference to this interpretation. The city believes the Court of Appeal’s decision departs from the deference due a city (particularly when supported by the Coastal Commission itself) in the interpretation of its own LCP. The city will be seeking review from the California Supreme Court. For more information, see the court decision:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B323731.PDF.”
The Riddicks are extremely frustrated that the city is seeking the highest California court’s discretionary review.
Liz Riddick is upset, stating, “Malibu utterly fails to build its share of new housing, and wastes taxpayer money to deny a tiny granny flat all the way to the Supreme Court. All our family has done is follow the plain language of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program. Malibu’s existing LCP states that attached structures like our ADU do not require a coastal development permit.”
Liz continued, “What this means is that attached ADUs anywhere in Malibu that meet statewide ADU requirements are not subject to Malibu’s onerous TDSF and side-yard setbacks, which the city relies upon to block the creation of affordable housing. That is why the city deleted the language that protects the ability to build an attached ADU from the LCP as part of the flawed ADU ordinance it recently approved, and sent to the Coastal Commission for comment.”
In Liz’s analysis, the city is wasting both time and taxpayer money. “Instead of wasting the community’s time and money filing frivolous appeals, Malibu should craft an ADU ordinance that is lawful, and actually allows small scale and environmentally conscious ADUs to be constructed here,” she said. “The appellate court judges virtually laughed at the city’s law firm when Malibu’s attorney tried to redefine the plain English in Malibu’s LCP and call it deference.
“Apparently Malibu’s city government prefers to continue to waste the community’s time and taxpayer money on frivolous appeals which hurt all of us in the long run. It’s outrageous!”
Jason Riddick agreed: “Malibu continues its stalling campaign against the property rights of residents by going to absurd lengths to prevent our modest 460-square-foot backyard ADU. The city already found that our planned ADU has no adverse environmental impact. Malibu has lost in court twice now, yet they’re continuing to waste time on a meritless petition for review, only about 5 percent of which are ever even granted. The city makes these poor choices without community input, behind closed doors, at the behest of financially interested outside lawyers, who are funded with our tax dollars. It’s a shame, but we’ll win in the end when they are forced to give us our permit.”
The city did not agree to a Malibu Times request to interview a city official regarding this case. Rather, it relies on statements made in its press release.
The city has filed its petition for review in the California Supreme Court and the Riddicks will respond in due course. The Malibu Times will keep readers informed as this is an important issue concerning attached ADUs in Malibu.