Planning commission recommends city adopt updated ADU rules to align with state law

The Malibu Planning Commission on Aug. 18 recommended the City Council adopt a zoning-text amendment to the Malibu Municipal Code to update rules for accessory dwelling units, commonly called ADUs.

The recommended resolution (No. 25-65) asks the council to approve zoning text amendment 25-003 to revise Title 17 of the municipal code. The commission voted to forward the measure after staff presentations and a wide-ranging discussion of how the city DU rules interact with state ADU law, the city—xisting Local Coastal Program and special rules that apply in areas affected by recent fires.

The revisions before the commission clarify definitions and permit types, establish two classes of ADU approvals, add a minimum ADU size the city must allow, and propose a limited local lot-coverage standard for locally regulated ADUs.

Planning staff member Joyce told commissioners the draft ordinance separates ADUs into two classes: a statutorily regulated Class 1 that matches categories set by state law and a locally regulated Class 2 for other ADUs. "Class 1 are statutorily regulated," Joyce said. "Class 2 are locally regulated." She said staff proposes using an administrative ADU permit, approved by the community development director, for ministerial approvals.

The amendment restates that state law controls where there is a conflict with local rules and adds a clarifying introductory paragraph that reads in substance: because Malibu lies entirely inside the coastal zone, ADU applications "may" be subject to the local coastal program (LCP) and, if a coastal development permit (CDP) is not required, then only the municipal ADU chapter governs.

Special counsel Todd Leishman provided legal context on how the LCP and state ADU statutes interact. He told the commission that when an ADU is processed under the LCP and requires a CDP, the coastal-review process governs. "If it is exempt [from a CDP], then it's treated under the municipal code," Leishman said, explaining the commission's draft splits those matters into three buckets: LCP/CDP review; ADUs exempt from CDPs that qualify as statutorily regulated; and ADUs that do not qualify for the statutorily regulated category and therefore are locally regulated.

Key changes discussed and captured in the recommended resolution include: - Definitions and cleanup to Title 17 language. - Clarifying the approvals section to state that the municipal ADU chapter applies when an ADU is not subject to the LCP; if an ADU is exempt from a CDP, only the ADU chapter applies. - Establishing two classes of ADUs (Class 1 statutorily regulated; Class 2 locally regulated) and using an administrative ADU permit for ministerial approvals. - Removing duplicative measurement language for height and floor area that is stated elsewhere in the code. - Ensuring the code explicitly allows a minimum 800-square-foot ADU consistent with state law. - Adding an optional lot-coverage (impermeable coverage) limit that staff says may be applied only to locally regulated ADUs (Class 2) and not to statutorily regulated ones. - Adjusting multifamily rules to reflect state law language allowing detached ADUs on multifamily lots (staff cited provisions allowing up to two detached ADUs with a proposed multifamily dwelling and up to eight on an existing multifamily dwelling, subject to caps by number of primary dwelling units).

The commission spent substantial time on three recurring issues: 1) How the city's 20-foot minimum street-width language interacts with state law and HCD comments. Staff proposed inserting the phrase "except as required by state law" into the street-width requirement so the city could retain the 20-foot preference where it is legally permitted. Joyce said the change was intended to respond to a letter the city received from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) asking for revisions. Commissioners disagreed about whether the 20-foot language should remain and whether the fire department, not zoning, is the appropriate authority for ingress/egress standards.

2) How septic systems and on-site wastewater treatment systems (OWTS) should be handled. A member of the public, Joe Drummond, asked whether existing septic systems would force fire-rebuild owners to install advanced wastewater systems to add ADUs. Staff and counsel said the building code and OWTS requirements remain enforceable and would be processed on a separate track; the ADU ordinance itself cannot be used to deny an ADU solely because of an OWTS issue. As staff put it, the OWTS is a separate application that may require its own approvals.

3) Fire-area exemptions and the governor's executive orders. Commissioners and staff noted a governor's order and court decisions have, in places affected by recent fires, suspended some LCP/CDP requirements so certain attached ADUs may qualify for ministerial review. Leishman and staff clarified that those exemptions are limited to specified areas and types of projects and that the LCP will continue to apply elsewhere.

Height and size: The draft ordinance preserves a minimum 800-square-foot ADU the city must permit under state law; draft height language discussed by staff retains an 18-foot limit for detached ADUs and allows higher attached ADUs (staff cited up to 25 feet in certain beachfront contexts) consistent with the limits the city can impose under state law.

Multifamily lots: The commission discussed the state law provision allowing detached ADUs on multifamily parcels. Todd Leishman explained that where there is an existing multifamily structure, owners can build detached ADUs up to a number equal to the number of primary dwelling units on the parcel, subject to the statutory cap staff cited. "It's really three buckets," Leishman said, describing LCP/CDP processing vs. the two municipal-code classes.

Commission action and vote: After discussion the commission took a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-65, as amended, and to recommend that the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment 25-003 amending Title 17 of the Malibu Municipal Code. The motion passed. The roll-call votes recorded in the meeting transcript show Commissioners Peek, Kamens and Vice Chair Riddick voting in favor and Commissioner Mazza abstaining; the motion carries and the matter will be forwarded to the City Council for final action.

Why it matters: If the City Council adopts the amendment, Malibu will have an updated ADU zoning chapter intended to be consistent with state ADU law and to clarify when local coastal review applies. Staff said the changes are meant to make the rules clearer for property owners, to reduce uncertainty for fire-rebuild applicants, and to respond to HCD comments so the ordinance can be certified.

Next steps: Staff said it will refine the draft language with the commission's input and continue discussions with HCD before the item goes to the City Council. The commission's recommendation and the draft ordinance will be part of the council packet when the council schedules the item.

Public comment at the meeting included questions about septic-system requirements, whether ADUs count toward total development standards, and concerns about road width and evacuation safety in canyons. The commission's discussion reflected those concerns and the legal constraints staff and counsel explained.