We use cookies to help you navigate efficiently and perform certain functions. You will find detailed information about all cookies under each consent category below.
The cookies that are categorized as "Necessary" are stored on your browser as they are essential for enabling the basic functionalities of the site. ...
Necessary cookies are required to enable the basic features of this site, such as providing secure log-in or adjusting your consent preferences. These cookies do not store any personally identifiable data.
Functional cookies help perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collecting feedback, and other third-party features.
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics such as the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with customized advertisements based on the pages you visited previously and to analyze the effectiveness of the ad campaigns.
Updated on September 12, 2024
In this blog we review a case about a homeowner’s challenge in fulfilling a CDP requirement while looking to expand and construct an additional unit on his property. At issue in the case of Riddick vs. the City of Malibu (“Malibu”), was Malibu’s denial of Jason Riddick, Elizabeth Riddick, and Renee Sperling’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) permit application to add an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) to their residence.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 (“Coastal Act”) requires that, unless an exception applies, anyone seeking to develop in a coastal zone must obtain a coastal development permit (“CDP”) in addition to any other permits required by law. All properties in Malibu are located within the coastal zone under the Coastal Act and are therefore subject to the rules contained therein. Under the Coastal Act, local governments are required to develop a local coastal program (“LCP”) consisting of a land use plan and a local implementation plan. Once, the California Coastal Commission certifies a local government’s LCP, it delegates authority over CDPs to the local government.
Since the California Coastal Commission certified Malibu’s LCP in 2002, it also delegated Malibu the power to approve CDPs in the city. Based thereon, on July 10, 2020, the Riddicks applied to Malibu for a permit for a 414 square foot ADU and a 157 square foot addition to their single-family residence (the “Project”). The purpose of the addition was so that Renee Sperling, Elizabeth Ridding’s mother, could move into the residence. On June 7, 2021, Malibu determined that the Project did not conform to Malibu’s LCP and therefore Malibu refused to approve a CPD. To try to get approval, Plaintiffs resubmitted plans for the Project designating the 157 square foot addition to the residence to instead be a part of the ADU. Plaintiffs argued that the Project was exempt from the CDP requirement. Malibu did not agree with this contention and this lawsuit followed.
The provision of Malibu’s LCP at issue in the case was section 13.4.1 which, with certain exceptions, exempted improvements to existing single-family residences from the CDP requirement. Plaintiffs argued that under this section, the Project was exempt from the CDP requirement. The trial court sided with Plaintiffs and directed Malibu to process Plaintiffs application for the Project. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety finding that the plain meaning of section 13.4.1 includes ADUs “in the class of improvements to existing single-family residences that are exempt from the CDP requirement.” In rendering its decision, the Court of Appeal analyzed in detail Malibu’s argument that their interpretation of the statute should be given great deference. The Court of Appeal concluded that Malibu’s interpretation of 13.4.1 is not entitled to deference since neither the language of the section nor its legislative history is ambiguous.
There are a few important implications from his ruling. First and foremost, the State of California continues to favor the ability of homeowners to place ADUs on their property. By not requiring a new Coastal Development Permit, the Court of Appeal essentially helped maintain the streamlined process for obtaining a permit for an ADU even in areas that are regulated by the Coastal Commission.
Second, this ruling stripped a bit of Malibu’s power to regulate development within its jurisdiction via the Local Coastal Plan. Malibu has had a history of litigation of its LCP, including litigation our attorneys became involved with over previous refusals to permit a residential construction project on Point Dume.
If you have any questions regarding an ADU or any legal requirements relating to an expansion to your property, please contact the local Los Angeles based real estate attorneys at Schorr Law today. Schorr Law has experience with interpreting regulations in many different jurisdictions in California including regulations relating to ADU’s. You can call us at 310-954-1877, or contact us online here and check eligibility for free consultation.
Ventura County - San Bernardino County - San Diego County - Bakersfield Kern County - Orange County - San Luis Obispo County - Riverside County - The Rest of California