Malibu City Council
September 23, 2024

March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 6 251
THE 9.11 ACRES WILL NEVER PRODUCE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Malibu’s AHO requires that “all units in excess of the permitted base density of six dwelling units per acre, shall be affordable to lower and moderate income households.” (MMC § 17.42.020(L), subd. 3.a.iv.) The AHO zone requires 70% of the housing to be affordable. Six units are market-rate units, and 14 units out of 20 units (70%) are affordable.

Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element states that the AHO zone allows “a minimum density of 20 units per acre for projects that include affordable housing. To qualify for the increased density incentive, all ‘bonus’ units (i.e., additional units allowed above the base density of 6 units per acre) must be deed-restricted for low- and moderate-income households. . .” (6th Cycle at page 101.) Malibu’s 6th Cycle states that this “creates a strong incentive for affordable housing development because of the additional units allowed at 20 units per acre to the base density of 6 units per acre.” (6th Cycle at page 102.) However, Malibu’s AHO does provide any additional market rate unit for providing affordable housing. The lack of incentive is difficult to understand. The landowner can choose between 6 market rate units for every acre (MF zone), or 6 market rate and 14 affordable units for every acre (AHO zone). The disincentive is readily apparent: Without any incentive in additional market rate units, affordable housing will never happen. The explains why “the City did not construct any very low and low income units and did not meet the 5th cycle RHNA objective of two units.” (6th Cycle at page 115.) Malibu could not provide a minuscule two units in the 5th cycle, but now proposes in the 6th cycle, to provide 66 low income units and 45 moderate income units (total 111 units), using the same 9.11 acres and exclusionary AHO zone offered to the public during three prior housing cycles.

Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element states that the “Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) District is applied to three vacant sites [in Table B-24]. The AHO allows multi-family development by-right at a minimum density of 20 units/acre. The AHO parcels were included in the 4th and 5th housing cycles to accommodate the lower-income RHNA requirement.” (6th Cycle at page 129.) However, “No multifamily developments were developed on those parcels during the 4th and 5th housing cycles. The disincentive to provide 70% affordable housing makes it clear that the AHO zone will not produce any affordable housing. This is not a strong incentive as Malibu states, it is a disincentive, and fully explains why “No multifamily developments have been proposed within the past 10 years.” (6th Cycle page 79) “Some multi-family development . . . is located in the flatter portions of the City along Pacific Coast Highway.” (6th Cycle at page 12.) However, “since its incorporation in 1991, the City has focused its efforts on preserving its rural character.” (6th Cycle at page 48.) “The Mobile home parks [were] in existence as of City incorporation.” (6th Cycle at page 63.) “The City was incorporated in 1991, long after urbanization and land use patterns had been established.” (6th Cycle at page 240.) In effect, all multi-family housing predates Malibu’s incorporation, Malibu has not added a single affordable unit in the past 33 years! March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 7 252
Malibu has yet to produce any affordable housing since its incorporation. The mobile home parks and multi-family housing predate Malibu’s incorporation. It is time for Malibu to “make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.” (Gov. Code § 65583.)
Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(6) requires that an analysis of constraints on land include “the price of land.” Malibu’s 6th Cycle housing inventory offers three parcels, the

9.11 acres identified above. This is not an adequate housing inventory. Malibu comprises

19.9 square miles or 12,736 acres. It is surprising that Malibu focuses on only the 9.11 acres which calculates into a minuscule 0.07% of all land in Malibu (12,736 acres / 9.11 acres)! The mandatory components of Malibu’s housing element require an “inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level . . .” (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) Malibu does not identify all vacant parcels in the city.

It is not true as Malibu states that “most of the buildable land in the City has already been developed.” (6th Cycle at page 78.) SCAG’s website has a vacant land inventory for each city within SCAG and the vacant land inventory for Malibu shows 476 vacant properties. It is unfathomable that Malibu focuses on only three properties.

Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element correctly states that “a recent survey of vacant land offered for sale found asking prices of approximately $100,000 to $15 million.” (6th Cycle at page 78.) Malibu should have noted that the 5.86 acre parcel, the largest of the 9.11 acres, is for sale for a $15 million (see attached Exhibit A). There is a host of land in the City that is selling for much less, and the $15 million price tag, along with the disincentive for any affordable housing under the AHO zone, puts a nail on the coffin of any affordable housing.

It may be true that the “density achieved is largely driven by the environmental conditions and the market demand for single family residences over multi-family residences in Malibu.” (6th Cycle at page 50). However, Malibu must comply with state law which demands that affordable housing sites “shall be . . . zoned with minimum density . . . at least 20 units per acre.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h)). “The goal is not just to identify land, but to pinpoint sites that are adequate and realistically available for residential development targets for each income level. (Gov. Code § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 244.) The “main way a housing element accommodates lower income housing needs is through zoning ordinances that allow sufficient opportunities to construct multifamily residences.” (Id. at 219.) It is time for Malibu to enact a citywide multi-family zone of 20 units per acre.

March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 8 253
MALIBU’S HEIGHT LIMITS VIOLATE THE HOUSING ELEMENT LAW
Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element states that the maximum “height limit of 18 feet may constrain the development of residential developments specifically for developments in the Multi-Family zone as 18 feet may only accommodate one story. Height limits are generally intended to maintain visual consistency within an area and compatibility between adjacent buildings.” (6th Cycle at page 50.)
There are many units in Malibu well above 18 feet. These units were built long before Malibu was incorporated. It is time for Malibu to remove the height constraint to multifamily housing. Contrary to Malibu’s assertion that the height constraints “are generally dictated by the state coastal zone regulations.” (6th Cycle at page 50.) Malibu readily admits that “development standards such as height may constrain development for multi-family residences.” (6th Cycle at page 50.) It is time for Malibu to enact height limitations to permit four-story multi-family units. This was the norm in Malibu prior to its incorporation, and contrary to its assertion, the existing multi-family units were developed with identical state coastal zone regulations. The only difference is that Malibu was incorporated to prevent any multi-family housing, and the data since its incorporation proves that it has done precisely that. It is time to remove these barriers.

THE MULTIFAMILY BEACH FRONT DISTRICT DENSITY IS INACCURATE The City’s March 2024 housing element states that the “default density refers to the density at which low-income housing development is presumed to be feasible . . . The MFBF zone allows development of more than 20 units per acre.” (6th Cycle at page 52.) This statement is not accurate for multiple reasons.

FIRST, the Housing Element Law is concerned with minimum density, not maximum density: “If local law or regulations require the development of a site at a minimum density, the department shall accept the planning agency’s calculation of the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(1).) The City must “accommodate 100 percent of the need for housing for very low and low-income households . . . on sites that shall be . . . zoned with minimum density and development standards that permit at least 16 units per site at a density of . . . at least 20 units per acre.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) SECOND, the Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”) provides the “Lot development criteria” for the MFBF zone and states that the “Minimum lot area: five thousand (5,000) square feet.” (MMC § 17.14050(A).) This calculates to only 8.71 units/acre (43,560/5,000) and is far less than a “minimum density” of 20 units per acre.

March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 9 254
THIRD, according to the MMC, the “Lot development criteria” for the MFBF zone permits the following density: “Units per lot: one unit per one thousand eight hundred eighty-five (1,885) square feet of lot area, not to exceed four units.” (MMC § 17.14050(D).) “Density: one additional unit per lot may be permitted, not to exceed five units per lot, for affordable housing . . . of very low, low, and moderate income households.” (MMC §

17.14050(E).) The limitation to five units per lot does not “permit at least 16 units per site at a density of . . . at least 20 units per acre.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) Setting aside the defect in limiting the density to five units per lot, the Housing Element Law is concerned with “the total housing unit capacity on that site based on the established minimum density.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(1).) Lots for affordable and lower-income households “shall be zoned with minimum density” of “at least 20 units per acre.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) In theory, the maximum zoning could be 23.1 du/acre. However, the minimum density is 8.71 du/acre (43,560/5,000), not 23.1 du/acre.

The maximum density of 23.1 du/acre is also inaccurate as it is limited to five lots. It is noted that in Table 7.4-2, the City correctly states that in the MFBF zone the “Maximum density is 1 unit per 1,885 sf of lot area, not to exceed 4 units per lot. One additional unit may be permitted if affordable to a very-low, low, or moderate-income household.” (6th Cycle at page 51, Table 7.1-2 at footnote 9.)
FOURTH, after omitting the lots on PCH comprising 9.11 acres discussed above, the balance of the “Sites Inventory” (Table B-4) consists of 21 lots producing 21 moderate houses; but 20 of the lots are less than 0.25 acres in size, and the Housing Element Law excludes sites “smaller than half an acre” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).) Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element states the “default density established by HCD for sites feasible to facilitate development of housing affordable to lower-income households is 20 units per acre. Although these sites are zoned at a maximum density greater than 20 units per acre, the vacant sites in the MFBF zone are smaller than 0.5 acres and permit up to four units per lot, which limits development potential. Based on development trends in the MFBF and the lot sizes, realistic development of these sites is 10 units. Based on market conditions, units in this zone would be affordable to above moderate-income households if developed with market rate units.” (6th Cycle at page 126.) The City’s zoning map shows the MFBF zone at two different places in the City, and it is true that lots in the MFBF will be developed for above moderate housing, i.e., million dollar homes. However, the lots in the MFBF zone will never provide affordable housing, with density and size as required by the Housing Element Law. After all, the lots designated in the MFBF zone are all 50 feet wide by 160 feet deep. The limitation to four or five units is inconsistent with the mandate that parcels are large enough to “permit at least 16 units per site at a density of . . . at least 20 units per acre.” (Gov. Code § 65583.2, subd. (h).) March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 10 255

MALIBU IS ENGAGING IN HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
“In 2018, the Legislature enacted a statute requiring local governments to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). The mandatory AFFH duty greatly increases the responsibilities on local governments in administering their land use and housing policies.” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 283.) Gov. Code § 8899.50 requires cities “to affirmatively further fair housing and ‘also required cities and counties to consider AFFH in their housing element’s implementation plan. By placing AFFH provisions into housing element law, the California law expanded its reach to all cities.” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 285.) Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (b)(1) provides that a city “shall administer its programs and activities relating to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively further fair housing, and take no action that is materially inconsistent with its obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.” Compliance with this AFFH provision is “a mandatory duty.” (Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (b)(2).)
“Affirmatively furthering fair housing’ means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” (Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (a)(1), italics added.) Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element must “affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community.” (§ 65583, subd. (c)(5).) “The requirement to affirmatively further fair housing is not only a mandate to refrain from discrimination but a mandate to take the type of actions that undo historic patterns of segregation and other types of discrimination and afford access to opportunity that has long been denied.” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 288.) The court in Martinez v. City of Clovis (2023) 90 Cal. App. 5th 193 stated:
“Thus, we conclude as a matter of law that the City’s acts and omissions in 2019 related to the amended housing element qualify as the administration ‘programs and activities relating to housing and community development’ for purposes of § 8899.50, subd. (b)(1).” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 288.) “In other words, if a municipality is engaging in housing discrimination, it is not affirmatively furthering fair housing.” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 289.) “Consequently, we conclude as a matter of law that the violations of §§ 65583, 65583.2(h), and 65584.09 . . . establish that the City has failed to ‘affirmatively further fair housing’ in violation of § 8899.50, subd. (b)(1). Restated using the language in the statutory definition of ‘affirmatively furthering fair housing,’ the City failed to ‘foster[] and maintain[] compliance with … fair housing laws.’” (§ 8899.50, subd. (a)(1).)” (Martinez, 90 Cal. App. 5th at 289.) March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 11 256
Malibu is a beautiful city with a 21-mile coastline consisting of beachfront residential lots and large estate lots in the hillsides and canyons overlooking the ocean. Producing affordable housing will not change Malibu’s character. It will provide housing to the nurses, teachers and others who work and wish to live in Malibu but cannot afford the cost.

Malibu’s multi-family zone of 6 units per acre is the most restrictive of any city in Los Angeles County. The effort in enacting an affordable housing overlay zone has not produced any affordable housing, because it provides no economic incentives for doing so. It looks good as the AHO zoning has the word “affordable” in the zone, but it has not produced a single unit in two prior hosing cycles. It takes very little difficulty to enact a new multifamily zone with a minimum of 20 units per acre or increase the existing multi-family zone to provide the mandatory 20 units per acre.

The combination of the restrictive zoning, the one-story height limit, and lack of incentive with additional density has made it clear that Malibu is not affirmatively furthering fair housing. It could be inferred that Malibu is engaging in housing discrimination. The many violations of the Housing Element Law at the very minimum establish that Malibu has failed to “affirmatively further fair housing.” (Gov. Code § 8899.50, subd. (b)(1)).

It is time to make honest corrections to Malibu’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. I am available to assist and will gladly meet with staff, or the council, to address solutions to the critical need for affordable housing in one of the most amazing cities in the country.

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF SEBASTIAN RUCCI, P.C.

Sebastian Rucci [Calf. Bar No. 178114]
Law Office of Sebastian Rucci, P.C.
16400 Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 212
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: (562) 901-0199
Cell: (330) 720-0398
Fax: (562) 249-6910
Email: [email protected]
March 20, 2024 Letter to City of Malibu (Comments on Sixth Cycle Housing Element) . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 12 257
1 Kay Real
From: DJ Dee < >
Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 10:33 AM
To: Housing Elements@HCD
Subject: Complaint about The Home Gallery in Malibu, California Hi there,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to bring to your attention some concerning issues related to The Home Gallery, aka Orbit Homes aka Autonomous Living LLC, a company operating in Malibu California. We believe there have been malpractices, and we would like your department to investigate the matter.

We have compiled a set of articles that shed light on the reported malpractices of The Home Gallery.

These are some items that we saw on their malpractices.  Leaks in the new properties - Despite the promise of comfort, multiple reports have surfaced regarding the compromised quality of The Home Gallery.
 Mold Infestations - The compromised quality of construction has led to water intrusion, creating a conducive environment for mold growth.
 Environmental Impact - . The company stores its homes on a vacant lot, leaving them exposed to the elements — be it dust storms, rain, or the risk of break-ins.  Unattended Homes and Electrical Issues - These oversights not only jeopardize the safety of homeowners but also reveal a disregard for the sanctity of the very spaces that The Home Gallery is entrusted to create.
 Project Failures and Refunds - Clients struggling to secure refunds in the wake of project failures face more than just monetary challenges.
 Unmet Expectations from the properties they sold
Here are some articles with more information about this complaint.

Article 1 [reddit.com]
Article 2 [reddit.com]
If you require any additional information or if there is a specific process we need to follow, please do let us know. We appreciate your attention to this matter and trust that your department will conduct a thorough investigation.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
258
1 Emily Green
From: David Kellogg < >
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2022 5:07 PM
To: Housing Elements@HCD
Subject: Public Comment on Housing Element
Nov 18, 2022
On behalf of David Kellogg (a Contra Costa County resident), 350 Contra Costa, Greenbelt Alliance, CaRLA, Scott O’Neil (a resident of Palo Alto), Watson Ladd (a resident of Berkeley), Marven Normal (a resident of San Bernadino), Dara Dadachanji (a resident of San Francisco), and George Grohwin (a resident of San Francisco), we provide the following comment on the Housing Element from MALIBU.

Issue
 The Housing Element from MALIBU fails to adequately analyze compliance with one of the state’s fundamental streamlining laws.  Under PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2, a lead agency must determine if a housing development is exempt from CEQA within 30 days of completeness, or if an EIR or other CEQA document will be required.  For CEQA-exempt housing, this CEQA determination then triggers a 60-day approval clock (with deemed approved remedies) under the Permit Streamlining Act. Thus, if state housing laws were followed, CEQA-exempt housing projects should generally receive approvals in about 120 days.

1. 30 days to determine completeness

2. 30 days for CEQA review

3. 60 days for approval.
 MALIBU does not appear to issue determinations of CEQA-exemption within 30 days of completeness. As a result, builders and the public are denied the right to the timely approval of housing. Additionally, the builders are forced into an unreasonable bargaining position, as they lack the “deemed approved” options they should have. This improperly empowers jurisdictions to treat builders arbitrarily in the entitlement process.
259
2  Moreover, MALIBU has no apparent good-faith basis for delaying CEQA-exemption determinations beyond the allowance of Public Resources Code 21080.1 & 21080.2. In the vast majority of instances, these exemptions are uncontested and straightforward.

Recommendation
 The Housing Element from MALIBU should include an analysis of compliance in its approval process with PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2.  The Housing Element from MALIBU should add a program to specify (i) who is responsible for making the CEQA determination of PRC 21080.1, specify (ii) that their decision will be made within the timeframe permitted by PRC 21080.2, and specify that (iii), when they determine a project is exempt from CEQA, their determination triggers the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) 60-day deadline (Gov. Code 65950(a)(5)). If existing local practices or regulations are incompatible with these state laws, the program should commit to enacting reforms necessary to achieve compliance within a reasonable and definite timeline.

HCD Technical Assistance Letter
 The CEQA issues mentioned herein are discussed in the June 3, 2022 Technical Assistance letter sent to Berkeley by Shannan West, Housing Accountability Unit Chief (copy included below).
 In the letter, HCD notes that Berkeley had been issuing “recommendations” of CEQA-exemption and that the actual “determinations” were made more than 30 days beyond the completeness date. HCD notes that such practice was in violation of PRC 21080.1 & 21080.2 and “may act as a governmental constraint on housing.”
260
3 261
1 Emily Green
From: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 3:33 PM
To: Lilly Rudolph; Veronica Tam; Emily Green; Kay Real
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: [EXT] FW: Malibu's 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Rincon Consultants. Be cautious before clicking on any links, or opening any attachments, until you are confident that the content is safe .

Public comment
From: losangeleschicagonewyork3 < >
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 5:17 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu's 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Hi yes my name is David Rodriguez
i have reviewed the updated Malibu 2021-2029 Housing element and i see that they are going to be 47 housing units availible to very low- income households i am very interested on one of those housing units and i am keeping touch with Malibu City Hall so i can be one of the first or first individual on the list to pay rent for one of the Housing Units under Malibus 2021-2029 Housing Element as my updated public comment i see Malibu CA as a safe neighberhood for me and i would love to be a resident of Malibu CA near the water enjoying the coast and Sun on the beach where i can hold my prayers under the Sunlight I am glad the City of Malibu CA is making way for this opurtunity please notify me through email or text on future Malibu City Hall meetings on the Malibu's 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
Sincerely David Rodriguez
Sent from my Metro by T-Mobile 5G Device
262
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix D
D-1 August/September 2024
Appendix D – List of Acronyms
AB Assembly Bill
AHO Affordable Housing Overlay
AMI Areawide Median Income
CCC California Coastal Commission
CCRL California Community Redevelopment Law
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CDP Coastal Development Permit
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DOF California Department of Finance
DU Dwelling unit
ELI Extremely low income
ESHA Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
FAR Floor area ratio
FMR Fair market rent
HCD California Department of Housing and Community Development HMDA Home Mortgage Disclosure Act
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
LCP Local Coastal Program
LIP Local Implementation Plan
MF Multi-family
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SF Single-family
263
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix D
D-2 August/September 2024

This page intentionally left blank.
264
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-1 August/September 2024
Appendix E
Contributing Factors to Fair Housing Issues
265
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-2 August/September 2024
266
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-3 August/September 2024
267
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-4 August/September 2024
268
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-5 August/September 2024
269
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-6 August/September 2024
270
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-7 August/September 2024
271
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-8 August/September 2024
272
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-9 August/September 2024
273
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-10 August/September 2024
274
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-11 August/September 2024
275
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-12 August/September 2024
276
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-13 August/September 2024
277
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix E
E-14 August/September 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
278
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-1 August/September 2024
Appendix F – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) The following section is new text subsequent to City Council adoption on January 10, 2022 and has not been denoted with formatting (underlines, strikethroughs, highlighting) to improve readability.

Introduction
Government Code § 8899.50 requires local agencies to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH). Under California law, AFFH means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” California law requires Housing Elements to include an assessment of fair housing that addresses the following components:
• A summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity
• An analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities • An assessment of contributing factors
• An identification of fair housing goals and actions.

Analysis of Fair Housing Methodology
Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii) requires the City of Malibu to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.

Resources
To conduct this analysis, the City utilized data from a variety of sources, including Housing and Community Development’s (HCD) AFFH Viewer, Urban Displacement Project (UDP), CalEnviroScreen, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC), and the 2018 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) for the Community Development Commission and Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles.

Housing and Community Development’s AFFH Viewer
The AFFH Data Viewer is a tool developed by HCD that features census block group and tract level data from an expansive collection of sources including the American Community Survey (ACS), US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), TCAC, and Urban Displacement Project (UDP). The Data Viewer tool serves as a resource for local and regional governments and provides the ability to explore spatial data patterns concerning fair housing enforcement, segregation, and integration, racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, and disparities in access to opportunities and housing.

The Data Viewer is intended to assist in the creation of policies that alleviate disparities, combat discrimination, and increase access to safe and affordable homes. 279
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-2 August/September 2024
Urban Displacement Project (UDP)
The UDP was developed as a research initiative by the University of California, Berkeley in partnership with the University of California, Los Angeles. The tool was developed to track neighborhood change and identify areas that are vulnerable to gentrification and displacement in California. Indicators of gentrification and displacement are measured at the census tract level based on data from the 2017-2021 ACS. UDP indicators examine census tracts to identify areas that qualify as disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Additionally, census tracts qualifying as disadvantaged neighborhoods per UDP’s criteria are further analyzed to explore changes in the percentage of college educated residents, non-Hispanic white population, median household income, and median gross rents over time to determine levels of gentrification and displacement risk.

CalEnviroScreen
The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) developed a screening methodology to help identify California communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. This tool is called the California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen). CalEnviroScreen utilizes existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank census tracts based on 20 distinct indicators. In general, the higher the score, the more impacted a community is by pollution burdens and population vulnerabilities. Designated disadvantaged communities are those communities that scored within the highest 25 percent of census tracts across California (CalEnviroScreen percentile scores of 75 or higher).

California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)
To assist in the analysis of integration and segregation in the context of race and income status, HCD and TCAC convened the California Fair Housing Task force to “provide research, evidence-based policy recommendations, and other strategic recommendations to HCD and other related state agencies/departments to further the fair housing goals (as defined by HCD).” The Task force created opportunity maps to identify resource levels across the state to accompany new policies aimed at increasing access to high opportunity areas. These opportunity maps are made from composite scores of three different domains (economic, environmental, and education) with each including a set of indicators. Table F-1 shows the full list of indicators. The opportunity maps include a measure or “filter” to identify areas with poverty and racial segregation. To identify these areas, census tracts were first filtered by poverty and then by a measure of racial segregation. The criteria for these filters were:
• Poverty: Tracts with at least 30 percent of the population under the federal poverty line
• Racial Segregation: Tracts with location quotient higher than 1.25 for Black, Hispanic, Asian, or all people of color in comparison to the county 280
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-3 August/September 2024
Table F-1
Domains and List of Indicators for Opportunity Maps
Domain Indicator
Economic Poverty, Adult Education, Employment, Job Proximity, Median Home Value Environmental CalEnviroScreen 3.0 pollution Indicators and Values Education Math proficiency, Reading proficiency, High school Graduation Rates, Student Poverty Rates Source: California Fair Housing Task Force, Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Maps, December 2020 2018 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice for the Community Development Commission and Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles As part of the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program certification process, participating jurisdictions must prepare an analysis of impediments to fair housing choice every five years (See Appendix E). This analysis and the AI provide an assessment of the regional laws, ordinances, statutes, and administrative policies, as well as local conditions that affect the location, availability, and accessibility of housing. This analysis also considers the conditions in the private market and public sector that may limit the range of housing choices or impede a person’s access to housing and provides solutions and measures that will be pursued to mitigate or remove identified impediments. The AI assesses the extent of housing needs among specific income groups and evaluates the availability of a range of housing choices for residents. Regionally, the AI identifies the following contributing factors to fair housing pertaining specifically to the cities located within Los Angeles County:
• Barriers to mobility
• Lack of affordable housing in a range of sizes
• Lack of sufficient accessible housing in a range of unit sizes • Lack of sufficient publicly supported housing for persons with HIV/AIDS • Land use and planning decisions restrict fair housing choice for persons with disabilities and affordable housing in general
• Presence of lead poisoning exposure
• substandard housing when compared to the total population • Noise pollution due to plane traffic from Los Angeles International Airport • Poor land use and zoning
• Sources of pollution and environmental hazards near housing • Access to quality healthcare
• Food insecurity – Access to healthy and nutritious food options • Location and access to local businesses, especially in economically depressed areas
281
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-4 August/September 2024
Approach to Analysis
Appendix F is an assessment that evaluates fair housing issues. An assessment of fair housing identifies and analyzes patterns, trends, conditions, and practices that result in less fair housing choice. This Appendix F was prepared consistent with HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements (AFFH Guidance Memo). 1 The AFFH Guidance Memo was prepared in response to Assembly Bill 686, which amended Government Code § 8899.50 to require housing elements to include an assessment of fair housing. Government Code § 8899.50 stipulates that an assessment of fair housing include the following components:
i. A summary of fair housing issues in the jurisdiction and an assessment of the jurisdiction’s fair housing enforcement and fair housing outreach capacity. ii. An analysis of available federal, state, and local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs within the jurisdiction, including displacement risk. iii. An assessment of the contributing factors for the fair housing issues identified under clause (ii).
iv. An identification of the jurisdiction’s fair housing priorities and goals, giving highest priority to those factors identified in clause (iii) that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity, or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights compliance, and identifying the metrics and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved.
v. Strategies and actions to implement those priorities and goals, which may include, but are not limited to, enhancing mobility strategies and encouraging development of new affordable housing in areas of opportunity, as well as placebased strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement.

Appendix F provides a fair housing assessment organized along the following topics:

1. Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity

2. Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends

3. Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty

4. Disparities in Access to Opportunity

5. Disproportionate Housing Needs

6. Local Data and Knowledge

7. Other Relevant Factors, including historical disinvestment, lack of infrastructure improvements, and presence of older affordable housing units that may be at risk of conversion to market-rate housing.
1 HCD, AFFH Guidance, p 7. April 2021 Update. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf#page=23 282
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-5 August/September 2024
For each topic, trends are presented at the regional scale and locally at the city scale.

Trends for overlapping issues were noted in the discussion for each topic and are referenced geographically by area or by census tract (see Figure F-1 for census tracts and neighborhoods within the city). Fair housing priorities, goals and actions are also provided specific to Malibu to address as implementation actions for the Housing Element. The goals and actions address the contributing factors for each theme itemized above.

Malibu’s city boundaries overlap with six census tracts: 8004.06, 8004.10 8004.11, 8004.12, 8005.04, and 8005.06. Most of these census tracts contain unincorporated county areas outside of the city boundary. Since the Census data for each census tract aggregates data from all households in the census tract regardless of jurisdictional boundaries, the Census data may not accurately reflect data that pertains only to Malibu households.

This analysis considers that discrepancy and noted where appropriate.

The neighborhoods and census tracts that make up Malibu include:
• Western Malibu: Consists of portions of Census Tracts 8004.06, 8004.11, and 8004.12.

Census Tracts 8004.06 is primarily comprised of unincorporated land and extends approximately three miles past the city’s boundaries into the Santa Monica Mountains. Census Tract 8004.12 encompasses the community of Point Dume. • Central Malibu: Consists of portions of Census Tracts 8004.10 and 8005.04. These census tracts are primarily comprised of unincorporated land and extend approximately 2.5 and 1.5 miles into the Santa Monica Mountains, respectively. • Eastern Malibu: Consists of a portion of Census Tract 8005.06, which is primarily comprised of unincorporated land and extends approximately 1.5 miles into the Santa Monica Mountains.
283
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-6 August/September 2024
Figure F-1
City of Malibu Census Tracts and Neighborhoods
284
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-7 August/September 2024
Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
Fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity relates to the ability of public jurisdiction and fair housing entities to disseminate information related to fair housing and provide outreach and education to assure community members are informed of fair housing laws and tenants’ rights. In addition, enforcement and outreach capacity includes the ability to address compliance with fair housing laws, such as investigating complaints, obtaining remedies, and engaging in fair housing testing.

Regionwide Fair Housing Services
Throughout the County of Los Angeles, there are a variety of organizations that provide fair housing services (see Table F-2). These organizations helped to coordinate the development of the Los Angeles County Consolidated Plan for 2018 – 2023 (organizations shown in Table F-2). The Consolidated Plan assesses the county’s affordable housing and community development needs by analyzing housing markets; articulating priorities, goals, and strategies to address identified needs; and describing the actions that need to be taken to implement strategies for affordable housing.

Table F-2
Organizations Active in Los Angeles County
Organization Activities and Capacity
1736 Family Crisis Center Outpatient services and emergency shelters Housing Rights Center Fair housing services
Helpline Youth Counseling Individual and community wellness services Shelter Partnership, Inc. Affordable housing services
YWCA of Greater Los Angeles Health related wellness services Affordable Living for the Aging Senior living housing services Quality of Life center Mental health services
Volunteers of East Los Angeles Community wellness services East Los Angeles Women’s Center Individual and community wellness services WINTER Education and career development services
St. Joseph Center Educational and vocational services
Source: Los Angeles County Consolidated Plan 2018 – 2023.

Enforcement
The Housing Rights Center (HRC) is a large non-profit civil rights organization dedicated to securing and promoting fair housing. HRC services all of Los Angeles County, including Malibu. HRC investigates housing discrimination and offers free, confidential housing counseling to assist tenants with housing discrimination issues, rent increases, notices and evictions, repairs, security deposits, disability accommodations, and other fair housing concerns.
285
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-8 August/September 2024
Fair housing testing and enforcement services are also provided by the State of California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), which has the authority to investigate and prosecute violations of state civil rights laws on a state-wide basis, including the use of discriminatory language in housing advertisements. Fair housing testing is a technique used to uncover evidence of discrimination in rental housing.

Initiated by the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division in 1991, fair housing testing involves the use of an individual or individuals who pose as prospective renters for the purpose of determining whether a landlord is complying with local, state, and federal fair housing laws. Enforcement actions may be taken when investigations yield evidence of a pattern or practice of illegal housing discrimination. Testing may be initiated following the filing of a specific housing discrimination complaint or, as is the case when testing for disability discrimination, as part of an overall effort to determine whether the design or architectural features of a specific rental facility comply with state and federal accessibility requirements. In Los Angeles County, fair housing testing is used to identify unlawful housing discrimination practices based on the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, familial status, marital status, age, ancestry, sexual orientation, and source of income of prospective renters.

HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity maintains a record of all housing discrimination complaints filed. These grievances can be filed on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, religion, familial status and retaliation. Between January 5, 2010, and June 26, 2020, 2,881 housing discrimination cases were filed within Los Angeles County by the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity. Overall, disability-related discrimination was the most reported—comprising 53 percent of all cases. Other complaints concerned race (21 percent), retaliation (15 percent), and familial status (16 percent).

Outreach
HRC organizes an annual fair housing conference and resource fair for housing providers.

Housing rights workshops are offered to landlords, property managers, and community members. Information on federal and state fair housing laws, common forms of housing discrimination, protected characteristics, unlawful practices, and fair housing liability is presented to workshop participants. Bilingual media outlets (primarily English and Spanish) and social media platforms are used to promote the conference and scheduled workshops and provide general information on fair housing. Information on rental housing options gathered from various classified and rental property sources is published on a monthly basis and distributed to the public and to social services representatives throughout Los Angeles County. Individual assistance is provided to landlords and tenants, with a focus on low- and moderate-income households.

Local Enforcement and Outreach
The City of Malibu is a participating city in the Los Angeles Urban County, which is a consortium of 48 cities that was formed to be eligible to receive HUD entitlement grants.

The Los Angeles County Development Authority (LACDA) administers the Los Angeles County’s CDBG programs for the Los Angeles Urban County. The CDBG programs include fair housing assistance programs through the Housing Rights Center, including legal 286
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-9 August/September 2024
counseling, discrimination complaints investigation, and landlord/tenant counseling.

Services are provided throughout the County.

Enforcement and Compliance with Existing Fair Housing Laws The City of Malibu is subject to state and federal laws related to fair housing. These laws include the following:
• Fair Housing Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The City complies by ensuring its actions related to housing are not discriminatory through City protocols, decision-making procedures, and adhering to non-discrimination requirements of federal funding programs.
• Rehabilitation Act of 1973. See Fair Housing Act; also, the City complies through its accessibility protocols, administered and enforced by the City’s ADA Coordinator.

See https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/29478/ADA-GrievanceForm?bidId= • American Disabilities Act. The City complies with the ADA through building permit review and issuance and as described in this Housing Element. • California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Regulations. The City complies with FEHA and its regulations through established City protocols decision making, legal counsel and advisement.
• Government Code Section 65008. The City Zoning Code is written to ensure that the City’s actions regarding the development of housing for persons and families of very low, low, moderate, and middle incomes, or emergency shelters for the homeless, are not discriminatory. Programs have been included in this Housing Element to remove constraints and facilitate housing for all households, including protected classes (e.g., programs regarding residential care facilities, emergency shelters, etc.)
Government Code Section 8899.50. Appendix F of this Housing Element documents compliance with Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing requirements. • Government Code Section 11135 et seq. The City complies with anti-discrimination requirements through the City’s Human Resources programs and the City’s procurement protocols.

Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code, Section 65915.). The City will update its density bonus ordinance to comply with the new provisions as part of the updates to the Zoning Ordinance (Program 3.4).
• Housing Accountability Act (Gov. Code, Section 65589.5.). The City has documented compliance with the Housing Accountability Act as described in Chapter 7.4, Housing Constraints.
• No-Net-Loss Law (Gov. Code, Section 65863). The City has documented compliance with sufficient capacity for RHNA and will ensure compliance with nonet loss via required annual reporting to HCD. 287
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-10 August/September 2024
• Least Cost Zoning Law (Gov. Code, Section 65913.1). The City includes programs in this Housing Element to ensure that sufficient land is zoned with appropriate standards to accommodate its RHNA.
• Excessive subdivision standards (Gov. Code, Section 65913.2.). The City’s subdivision standards are typical or not excessive in compliance with the Government Code.
• Limits on growth controls (Gov. Code, Section 65302.8.). The City complies as it has no growth control measures.
• Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, Section 65583, esp. subds. (c)(5), (c)(10).). This Housing Element documents compliance with Housing Element Law.

The City of Malibu complies with these laws through the City’s daily operations. The City complies with the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), prohibiting discrimination based on marital status, ancestry, source of income, sexual orientation, and arbitrary discrimination in addition to the groups protected under federal fair housing legislation. The City does not have local ordinances that relate to fair housing.

As a participant of the Los Angeles Urban County program for CDBG funds, the City is served by the HRC, which provides fair housing services countywide under a contract with the LACDA. The City refers requests for services to HRC Any complaints or requests for services are referred to the HRC for investigation and action. According to HUD data, the City had three fair housing discrimination cases between 2013 and 2022. One complaint was on the basis of disability, one on the basis of sex, and one on the basis of retaliation. HRC did not receive calls from Malibu residents from July 2022 through June 2023.2 The City is unaware of any past or current fair housing lawsuits.

Outreach
The City advertises fair housing services through the placement of fair housing service brochures at the public counter and at the Malibu Senior Center. Apartment owners and managers are provided with current information about fair housing issues, rights and responsibilities. The Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles conducts seminars on state, federal and local fair housing laws and compliance issues. The City website does not provide fair housing information. Program 5.1 requires the City to provide more information and resources on fair housing, and Program 5.2 Fair Housing Community Outreach aims to provide community outreach to increase participation from all sectors in the community in developing the City’s housing policies and overall planning process.

Specifically, outreach for affordable housing opportunities will extend beyond city limits to include workers who work but do not live in the City.

Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
To inform priorities, policies, and actions, the housing element must include an analysis of integration and segregation, including patterns and trends, related to people with protected characteristics. Integration generally means a condition in which there is not 2 Communication with Javier Beltran, HRC. September 2023. 288
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-11 August/September 2024
a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. As defined in Title 24 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 5.151, segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a type of disability in a particular geographic area when compared to a broader geographic area. In order to adequately assess the patterns of both integration and segregation, trends at the regional scale are presented for the greater Los Angeles region and at the local scale for the City of Malibu.

Race and Ethnicity
The ethnic and racial composition of a region relates to fair housing concerns such as household size, locational preferences, and economic opportunity.

Regional Trends
In the Southern California region, Hispanic/Latino populations are most concentrated in and around South Los Angeles, to the north of Los Angeles near the City of San Fernando, and in central Orange County near the City of Santa Ana. Asian American populations are most prevalent in Downtown Los Angeles, East Los Angeles, near the cities of Alhambra, Monterey Park, and Chino Hills, and in Orange County near the cities of Cerritos, Westminster, and Irvine. The largest concentration of Black/African American populations is in South Los Angeles and the nearby unincorporated county communities of Athens-Westmont and View Park/Windsor Hills. White populations tend to have highest prevalence near the coast, including in Malibu, and along the Interstate 210 Corridor south of the San Gabriel Mountains. Los Angeles County has the one of the highest percent of non-white population in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region, second to Imperial County.3
The areas with highest percentage of non-white residents in the region are in South Central Los Angeles, near the city of San Bernadino, eastern San Fernando Valley, and in central Orange County near the city of Garden Grove. These areas have at least 80 percent of non-white residents, as shown in Figure F-2. Comparatively, the less urbanized areas of the region and along the coast have a significantly lower percentage of nonwhite populations.

HUD utilizes the racial/ethnic dissimilarity index to measure segregation levels across a defined geographic boundary. The racial/ethnic dissimilarity index ranges from 0-100, where 0 represents perfect integration between racial groups and 100 representing perfect segregation.4 According to the most recent HUD data, segregation levels in Los Angeles County are roughly similar to the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim region (as defined by HUD). Over the past three decades, the racial/ethnic segregation index score in Los Angeles County fluctuated (Table F-3). Since 2010, segregation increased between non-white and white residents; and between Asian American/Pacific Islander, 3 SCAG. Racial Equity Baseline Conditions Report. 2022. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/fileattachments/2022racialequitybaselineconditionsreport_final.pdf#:~:text=People%20of%20color%20currently%20comprise ,2024%20RTP%2FSCS%20Projection), accessed August, 2023. 4 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 289
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-12 August/September 2024
Hispanic/Latino, and /white residents. Segregation between Black/African American and white residents decreased during this time.

Table F-3
Racial Dissimilarity Index Values for Segregation (Los Angeles County and Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region)
Los Angeles County Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Region Race 1990 2000 2010 Current 1990 2000 2010 Current
Non-White/White 53.33 53.62 53.85 55.87 55.32 55.50 54.64 56.94 Black/White 68.29 63.51 60.24 64.21 72.75 68.12 65.22 68.85 Hispanic or Latino/White 62.81 64.99 64.38 65.12 60.12 62.44 62.15 63.49 Asian or Pacific
Islander/White

41.58 48.57 49.62 52.79 43.46 46.02 45.77 49.78
Source: HUD, 2023, Table 3 – Racial/Ethnic Dissimilarity Trends 290
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-13 August/September 2024
Figure F-2
Percentage Total Non-White Population (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
291
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-14 August/September 2024
Local Trends
According to the 2020 Census, white residents comprised the most prevalent racial/ethnic group in Malibu. Table F-4 shows the population by racial category for Malibu in 2010 and 2020 and compares the 2020 population to the composition of the Southern California region in 2020. Malibu’s racial composition has a higher percentage of white, non-Hispanic residents than the Southern California region and a lower percentage of non-white residents. Approximately 77 percent of Malibu’s population is non-Hispanic white compared to approximately 30 percent of the Southern California regional population. The percentage of Hispanic/Latino residents in Malibu is 12 percent, compared to approximately 47 percent of the Southern California regional population.

Malibu’s population has become more diverse during the past decade, but most of the city is designated an area of high white segregation by HUD, as shown in Figure F-3. The areas that are not designated high white segregation do not have available data.

The concentration of non-white residents by census tract is shown in Figure F-4. The figure shows that areas with 20 percent non-white residents are located in the area neighborhood of Point Dume and the area between Latigo Canyon Road and Malibu Canyon Road in western Malibu. The figure also shows that certain areas of the city are 21-40 percent non-white. However, these areas are primarily located within the census tracts that contain large areas of unincorporated Los Angeles County (Census Tracts 8004.06, 8004.10, and 8005.06) . This overlap with County land may affect the census data concerning racial composition within the boundaries of Malibu and may not accurately reflect the population in the city. Given local knowledge of City staff, it is likely that the racial composition of Census Tracts 8004.06, 8004.10, and 8005.06 are similar to other areas of the city with 20 percent non-white residents.

Table F-4
Share of Population by Racial/Ethnic Group, City of Malibu and the Southern California Region
Malibu
(Percent of Population)
Southern California Region
(Percent of Population)
Race 2010 2020 2020
Hispanic/Latino 6.7 12.0 46.7
Non-Hispanic White 82.0 77.1 30.3
Black/African American 1.4 0.5 6.2
Asian American/Pacific Islander 4.5 2.8 13.5
Other or Multiple Races 0.0 0.5 3.1
Source: US Census, 2020. ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates, Table DP05; SCAG. Racial Equity Baseline Conditions Report. 2022. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2022racialequitybaselineconditionsreport_final.pdf Figure F-5 shows the predominance of white populations in the city. White residents are the predominant racial/ethnic group in all census tracts in the city. 292
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-15 August/September 2024
Figure F-3
Neighborhood Segregation (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
293
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-16 August/September 2024
Figure F-4
Percent of Total Non-White Population (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023.
294
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-17 August/September 2024
Figure F-5
Predominant Populations (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
295
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-18 August/September 2024
Persons with Disabilities
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities may prevent a person from working, restrict one’s mobility, or make it difficult to care for oneself. Disabled persons often have special housing needs related to limited earning capacity, a lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health costs associated with a disability. The living arrangement of persons with disabilities depends on the severity of the disabilities and the available resources. Many people with disabilities live at home in an independent arrangement or with other family members. To maintain independent living, people living with disabilities may need assistance. Four factors – affordability, design, location, and discrimination – significantly limit the supply of housing available to households of people with disabilities.

Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, 1,004,632 Los Angeles County residents have one or more disabilities, or 10.1 percent of the total population. Most of this population are seniors: 4.7 percent are aged 18 or younger, 13.8 percent are between the ages of 18 and 64, and 73.7 percent are 65 and older. Figure F-6 shows the percent of population living with a disability for each census tract in Los Angeles County. In most of the county, less than 20 percent of the population has one or more disabilities. There are small areas with more than 40 percent of the population with a disability in Long Beach, Santa Monica, and Downtown Los Angeles.

Local Trends
Approximately 883 residents (8.1 percent) of Malibu’s population live with one or more disabilities. This is lower than the county average of 10.1 percent. According to 2021 ACS estimates shown in Figure F-8, cognitive difficulty was the most common disability reported by Malibu residents.

Figure F-7 shows the percentage of the population living with one or more disabilities in the city by census tract. In most areas of the city, less than 10 percent of residents live with a disability. The census tract that makes up the majority of Western Malibu and the area north of Point Dume (Census Tract 8004.06) has between 10 to 20 percent of residents reporting living with one or more disability. This census tract also has a high percentage of residents who are over 65 years of age (29 percent). However, the data may be affected due to the inclusion of unincorporated County land in the census tract and may not accurately reflect differences within the city’s population. Residents in Western Malibu live further away from resources such as grocery stores, retail, and community facilities than residents in Central and Eastern Malibu. Combined with a lack of transit options, this distance creates a disproportionate burden on residents with disabilities in Western Malibu, particularly those who do not have access to or ability to drive a vehicle.

As noted in Chapter 7.2, Housing Needs Assessment, there are two senior residential care facilities in Malibu, but there is no housing specifically for people with disabilities. The City will implement Program 2.4b to remove constraints to the development of residential care facilities.
296
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-19 August/September 2024
Figure F-6
Percent of Population with a Disability (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
297
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-20 August/September 2024
Figure F-7
Percentage of Population with One or More Disabilities (Malibu) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
298
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-21 August/September 2024
Figure F-8
Disability by Type (Malibu)
Notes: These disabilities are counted separately and are not mutually exclusive, as an individual may report more than one disability. These counts should not be summed.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (2021), Table S1810 Familial Status
According to the Fair Housing Act, familial status refers to the presence of children under the age of 18 in a household with a legal guardian or designee of such guardian.5 HUD provides examples of familial discrimination as (a) refusing to rent to families with children; (b) evicting families once a child joins the family through, e.g., birth, adoption, custody; (c) requiring families with children to live on specific floors or in specific buildings or areas; (d) imposing overly restrictive rules about children’s use of the common areas (e.g., pools, hallways, open spaces); and (e) advertising that prohibits children. 6 Single parent households are protected by Government Code § 65583(a)(7). Because of their relatively lower incomes and higher living expenses, single-parent households can have limited options for affordable, decent, and safe housing. As a result, single parents are considered to be among the groups most at risk of experiencing poverty.

In addition to barriers to fair housing for single-parent households, large families can also experience housing discrimination as property owners impose occupancy limitations that can preclude large families with children. HUD data shows that familial status discrimination ranks third in discrimination of protected classes, behind discrimination due to disability and race.7
5 42 U.S. Code sections 3601, et seq., the Fair Housing Act. 6https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/discrimination_against_families_children#_Who_Is_Prote cted?
7 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. “Annual Report on Fair Housing FY 2017.”

3.1%

1.1%

3.5%

3.3%

1.3%

3.1%

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%
With a hearing
difficulty
With a vision
difficulty
With a cognitive
difficulty
With an
ambulatory
difficulty
With a self-care
difficulty
With an
independent
living difficulty
Percent of Population Reporting a
Disability
299
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-22 August/September 2024
Regional Trends
About 35 percent of all households within Los Angeles County are family households, consisting of two or more individuals who are related by birth, marriage, or adoption, although they also may include other unrelated people. Non-family households consist of people who live alone or who share their residence with unrelated individuals.

Approximately 15 percent of households are characterized as female-headed, singleparent households, as shown in Figure F-9. There are areas with a higher concentration of households with children who reside in female-headed, single-parent households in the neighborhoods of South Central and San Pedro in Los Angeles, and the cities of Inglewood and Huntington Park.

Table F-5 shows a breakdown of each household type in the county. Countywide, 58.4 percent of owner-occupied households are married couple families while 23.3 percent are categorized as non-family households. In contrast, non-family households constitute the majority of renter-occupied households, with 41.9 percent as non-family households and 30.3 percent as married-couple families. Figure F-10 highlights the percentage of children residing in married-couple households. There are greater percentages of children in married-couple households in relatively less urbanized communities of the county. Highly urbanized neighborhoods within and surrounding the City of Los Angeles have lower percentages of children in married-couple households compared to cities near the coastal region and the county periphery.

Additionally, 12.0 percent owner-occupied households are headed by a female-headed householder with children present, while 6.1 are headed by a male-headed householder with children present. Approximately 17.1 percent of renter-occupied households are female-headed compared to 8.6 percent that are male-headed household.

Table F-5
Household Type by Tenure (Los Angeles County)
Household Type
Owners Renters
Households Percent Households Percent
Married couple family 917,264 58.4% 548,495 30.3%
Male householder, no spouse present 96,698 6.1% 157,039 8.6% Female householder, no spouse present 188,337 12.0% 309,816 17.1% Non-family households 365,710 23.3% 792,228 41.9%
Total Households 1,568,009 100.0% 1,807,578 100.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25011 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2021 5-yr Estimates.

Local Trends
Table F-6 shows household type by tenure in the City of Malibu. Owner-occupied households are predominantly married-couple households. Approximately 68 percent of owner-occupied households in Malibu are family households, slightly less than the Southern California region. Thirty percent are categorized as non-family households, which is higher than the Southern California region. The higher percentage of non-family 300
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-23 August/September 2024
households in the city may be due to the city’s proximity to Pepperdine University and college students residing in off-campus housing as roommates. Only 60 percent of undergraduate students reside on campus; therefore, 40 percent reside off-campus and likely in Malibu.8 The higher percentage may also be due to a higher percentage of single-person households and seniors living alone.

Of the family households, 57.8 percent of owner-occupied households in Malibu are married-couple families. In contrast, family households comprise 49.6 percent of renteroccupied households, while non-family households comprise 50.1 percent. Of the family households, married-couple families comprise 40.5 percent of renter-occupied.

Of all owner-occupied households, female-headed households comprise approximately

6.3 percent male-headed households comprise 3.7 percent. Of all renter households, female-headed comprise 4.9 percent and male-headed households comprise 4.2 percent. As shown in Figure F-11, children in female-headed households comprise less than 20 percent of all households with children present in all areas of the city. Femaleheaded households do not appear to be segregated from other populations in Malibu.

The percentage of households in Malibu that are single-parent households for both renter- and owner-occupied households is less than in the Southern California region.

As shown in Figure F-12, the east Malibu has a higher percentage of children in married couple households than western Malibu.

Table F-6
Household Type by Tenure (City of Malibu)
Household Type
Owner Renter
Households Percent Households Percent
Married couple family 1,965 57.8% 425 40.5%
Male householder, no spouse present 128 3.7% 45 4.2%
Female householder, no spouse present 215 6.3% 52 4.9%
Non-family households 1,087 32.0% 525 50.1%
Total Households 3,395 100.0% 1,047 100.0%
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table B25011 Tenure By Household Type (Including Living Alone) and Age of Householder, 2021 5-yr Estimates.
8 Pepperdine University. 2018.
https://www.pepperdine.edu/oie/content/pdf/housing_residence_life_program_review_2018.pdf 301
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-24 August/September 2024
Figure F-9
Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
302
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-25 August/September 2024
Figure F-10
Percent of Children in Married-couple Households (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
303
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-26 August/September 2024
Figure F-11
Female Headed Households with Children, No Spouse/Partner Present (Malibu) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
304
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-27 August/September 2024
Figure F-12
Percent of Children in Married-couple Households (Malibu) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
305
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-28 August/September 2024
Household Income
Household income is directly connected to the ability to afford housing. Higher-income households are more likely to own rather than rent housing. As household income decreases, households tend to pay a disproportionate amount of their income for housing and the number of persons occupying unsound and overcrowded housing increases. To achieve fair housing objectives, people in low-income households must have a choice in housing opportunities—that is, when they are able to locate units that are affordable and well maintained in all parts of a jurisdiction and region.

This section identifies household income disparities using data based on median household income and low or moderate income (LMI) geographies. HUD defines an LMI area as a census tract or block group where over 51 percent of the population is LMI. The definition of low or moderate income is based on HUD income definitions of up to 80 percent of the AMI.

Regional Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, Los Angeles County has a median household income of $77,456, which is similar to the Southern California regional median household income of $77,430.

As shown in Figure F-13, there are concentrations of low and moderate income (LMI) households throughout Los Angeles County, centered within and around the City of Los Angeles and scattered throughout cities in the San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley. The largest concentration of LMI households is in the Downtown and South-Central neighborhoods of the City of Los Angeles. In most of these areas, between 75 and 100 percent of households are LMI households. Regionally, coastal cities such as Malibu generally have a lower percentage of LMI households (less than 25 percent), except for the cities of Long Beach and Santa Monica.

Local Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, Malibu has a median household income of $178,594, approximately 230 percent higher than Los Angeles County’s median income of $77,456.

Figure F-14 shows the median household income in Malibu by census tract. Eastern Malibu and the census tract north of Point Dume (Census Tract 8004.11) have the highest median annual household income in the city (greater than $175,000).

Figure F-15 shows the percent of households that are LMI households, by census tract. The percentage of LMI households is low throughout most of the city, but there is an LMI household concentration between 25 and 50 percent in Census Tract 8005.04, which includes the Civic Center in Eastern Malibu. This area has a higher concentration of commercial uses and is in proximity to Pepperdine University. While the campus is not within Malibu city limits, it is located within the same census tract. On-campus student housing does not factor into census-designated households. However, as noted previously, approximately 40 percent of students live off campus, and likely reside close to the university. It is possible that a higher number of students live in this census tract than other census tracts, accounting for the higher percentage of LMI households. 306
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-29 August/September 2024
Figure F-13
Low to Moderate Income Population (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023.
307
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-30 August/September 2024
Figure F-14
Median Household Income (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
308
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-31 August/September 2024
Figure F-15
Low to Moderate Income Population (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
309
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-32 August/September 2024
This census tract also contains a significant amount of unincorporated land, which could affect the data and may not accurately reflect the household income levels of residents within Malibu’s city limits. Of the total housing units in Census Tract 8005.04, 32 percent are multifamily, the highest percentage of multifamily units compared to other census tracts that overlap with the city limits. No census tract within the city qualifies as a LMI area (with 51 percent or more LMI households). The city’s high-cost real estate makes it difficult for a low-income household to live within city limits. Therefore, Malibu is economically segregated from the region.

Table F-7 displays income level by household type. According to 2017-2021 ACS data, married-couple families in Malibu have significantly higher incomes than non-family households. Approximately 85.3 percent of married couple families earn an income above $100,000 per year, compared to 48.4 percent of nonfamily households and 71.4 percent of total households. Approximately 24 percent of all households earn an annual income of less than $75,000 per year (approximately the County median household income). More than 40 percent of households in Malibu earn an annual income of $200,000 or more.

Table F-7 Income Level by Household Type (Malibu)
Income Level Total Households Married-Couple Families Nonfamily Households Less than $10,000 7.5% 5.9% 9.7%
$10,000 to $14,999 0.7% 0.0% 2.0%
$15,000 to $24,999 4.3% 0.0% 11.8%
$25,000 to $34,999 3.6% 1.4% 6.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 1.9% 1.0% 3.3%
$50,000 to $74,999 5.9% 3.5% 8.5%
$75,000 to $99,999 4.8% 2.8% 10.0%
$100,000 to $149,999 11.6% 11.8% 13.0%
$150,000 to $199,999 16.6% 17.9% 11.5%
$200,000 or more 43.2% 55.6% 23.9%
Median income $178,594 $129,862 $58,271
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table S1901, Income in the Past 12 Months (Inflation-Adjusted Dollars), 2017-2021 Estimates
Racially and Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
To identify racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty (known as R/ECAPs), TCAC includes a poverty concentration and racial segregation filter that aligns with HUD’s R/ECAP methodology but is intended to reflect the level of racial and ethnic diversity more effectively. TCAC categorizes census tracts that have both a poverty rate of over 30 percent and that are designated as being racially segregated (overrepresentation of people of color relative to the region) as areas of high segregation and poverty.
310
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-33 August/September 2024
Poverty and Segregation
Regional Trends
Countywide, concentrations of poverty and segregation may exasperate existing impediments to fair housing such as lending discrimination and overcrowded housing conditions. Approximately 14 percent of the population in Los Angeles County earns an income below the poverty line, higher than the state average of 12.2 percent. Figure F-16 shows areas of high segregation and concentrated poverty in Los Angeles County. The most prominent areas of high segregation and poverty are in the South-Central area of the City of Los Angeles and East Los Angeles. Areas of high segregation and poverty are also present in the San Fernando Valley in the neighborhoods of Panorama City, Pacoima, and Van Nuys. In North Los Angeles County, high segregation and poverty areas are present within the cities of Palmdale, Lancaster, and Victorville.

Local Trends
Areas of high segregation and poverty are not present within the city of Malibu.

Therefore, Malibu does not have census tracts that meet the HUD definition of a R/ECAP.

However, Malibu does have residents that experience poverty. Approximately 8.6 percent of the population of Malibu earns an income below the poverty line. As shown in Figure F-17, there is a higher percentage of residents in poverty within census tracts located south of the Pacific Coast Highway in the neighborhood of Point Dume, and the area between Latigo Canyon Road and Malibu Canyon Road in western Malibu (Census Tracts 8004.12 and 8004.10). Census Tract 8004.10 is primarily made up of unincorporated land, which may affect the data and may not accurately reflect the households within Malibu’s city limits. In these areas, between 10 and 20 percent of residents earn an income below the poverty line. As confirmed by City staff, it is likely that many low-income households in Malibu are retired elderly households who are “income-poor” but “assetrich”, as home values in these census tracts are comparable to citywide home values9 and it is difficult for a low-income household to afford the real estate prices in city limits.

Concentrated Areas of Affluence
While R/ECAPs have long been the focus of fair housing policies, racially concentrated areas of affluence (RCAAs) must also be analyzed. RCAAs are defined as affluent, white communities.10 According to a policy paper published by HUD, white residents are the most racially segregated group in the United States and typically more affluent than majority non-white communities. RCAAs have not been studied extensively, nor has a standard definition been adopted by HCD or HUD. Therefore, this assessment uses the percent white population and median household income as thresholds to identify potential RCAAs. In addition to having a higher median income, areas of affluence typically experience less overcrowding, less housing cost burden on renters, and are generally less susceptible to displacement compared to areas of high segregation and poverty.
9 Zillow. https://www.zillow.com/ Accessed 16 November 2023 10 Goatz, Damanio and Williams, 2019. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/cityscpe/vol21num1/ch4.pdf 311
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-34 August/September 2024
HCD’s AFFH Data Viewer identifies RCAAs as census tracts that have a white population that is 1.25 times higher than the county and a household median income 1.5 times higher than the county AMI.

Regional Trends
The areas characterized as RCAAs in Los Angeles County are shown in, Figure F-18,and are located throughout the county. Many coastal cities, including the cities of Malibu, Santa Monica, Redondo Beach, and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as the cities of Pasadena, Burbank, and Monrovia in eastern Los Angeles County. The communities of Palos Verdes Peninsula, Hollywood Hills, Santa Monica Mountains, and La Canada/Flintridge are also characterized as RCAAs.

Local Trends
The entire city of Malibu is designated as RCAA as shown in Figure F-19. While the entire city is classified as a RCAA, Census Tract 8005.04 in Eastern Malibu has a higher concentration of both affluent and white-dominant communities compared to other areas of the city. The city has a large proportion of white residents and a median income that is more than double the median income of Los Angeles County. The city’s economic and racial segregation is likely due to redlining practices and racial covenants practiced between the 1930s and 1970s that promoted exclusion on the basis of race, as discussed in Local Knowledge. The City was not incorporated until 1991, after land use patterns were already established. By that time, Malibu had long been established as an enclave for higher-income households with mostly single-family homes. As a result, white, affluent households are significantly more prevalent in Malibu, and non-white and low-income households have faced difficulty accessing housing in the city due to availability and affordability. Program 5.1 and Program 5.2 aim to provide fair housing services and community outreach to decrease segregation within the city. 312
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-35 August/September 2024
Figure F-16
Areas of High Segregation and Poverty (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
313
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-36 August/September 2024
Figure F-17
Poverty Status (Malibu)

Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
314
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-37 August/September 2024
Figure F-18
Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
315
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-38 August/September 2024
Figure F-19
Concentrated Areas of Affluence (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
316
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-39 August/September 2024
Disparities in Access to Opportunity
Access to opportunity, including access to education, employment, economic development, safe and decent housing, low rates of violent crime, transportation, recreation, and food and healthy environment (including clean air and water, safe neighborhoods, safety from environmental hazards, and access to social services and cultural institutions) influences health and economic outcomes. According to the California Fair Housing Taskforce, a group convened by HCD, “opportunity,” can be thought of as pathways leading to better lives, including through health, education, and employment. 11 Improving access to opportunity can include supporting low-income communities with mobility and access to neighborhoods considered by TCAC to be ‘high resource.’12
HUD’s Opportunity Indices were created to inform communities about racial/ethnic segregation and disparities in access to opportunity.13 Indicator index scores range from 0-100, with 100 representing the most positive outcomes). Measured at the neighborhood level, the index scores are intended to inform communities about segregation and disparities in access to opportunity in their jurisdiction and compare the opportunity indicators rankings across racial/ethnic groups. Generally, higher index scores are indicative of greater access to opportunity. For example, the “low poverty index” captures the poverty rate within a given neighborhood; the higher the index score means the less exposure to poverty. A higher “jobs proximity” score means that residents have greater accessibility to employment locations within the larger region.14 Each index is measured using the following variables:
• Economic Opportunity Index: a composite of poverty rate by census tract, percentage of adults with a bachelor’s degree, percentage of adults employed, and number of jobs for persons without a bachelor's degree that fall within a given radius of each census tract.
• Environmental Opportunity Index: exposure to pollution burden shown in CalEnviroScreen.
• Educational Opportunity Index: the percentage of fourth-grade students testing proficient in reading and math within three miles of a census block group. • Low Transportation Cost Index: the cost of transportation and proximity to public transportation by neighborhood.
• Transit Index: How often low-income families in a neighborhood use public transportation.
11 California Fair Housing Task Force. 2020. Methodology for the 2020 TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. June 2020. https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2020-tcac-hcd-methodology.pdf 12 Ibid. 13 HUD, 2020. https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/FHEO/documents/AFFH-T-Data-Documentation-AFFHT0006-July-2020.pdf 14 Urban Institute, 2018. https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/98674/place_and_opportunity_brief_3.pdf 317
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-40 August/September 2024
Transit
Access to public transit is of paramount importance to lower-income households. Limited transportation options reduce access to jobs, public spaces (such as parks, plazas, and campuses), and goods and services.

Regional Trends
Mass transportation in Los Angeles County consists of regional bus systems, city bus systems, ADA paratransit services, heavy rail, light rail, and subways. Service operations include:
• Los Angles Metro: Multiple commuter rail lines connecting to cities located throughout the greater Los Angeles Region
• San Fernando Valley Transit Services: Antelope Valley Transit, Burbank Bus, Glendale Beeline, LADOT Dash/Commuter Express, La Canada Flintridge Shuttle, Pasadena Transit, Santa Clarita Transit, Simi Valley Transit • San Gabriel Valley Transit Services: Alhambra Community Transit, Baldwin Park Shuttle, Commerce Municipal Bus, Duarte Transit, El Monte Transit, Glendale Beeline, Glendora Mini Bus, La Puente LINK, LADOT DASH, Monterey Park Spirit, Omnitrans, OCTA, Pasadena Transit, Rosemead Explorer, Go West / West Covina, Foothill Transit
• South Bay, Gateway Cities and Central/West Side Los Angeles Transit Services:

Long Beach Transit, Torrance Transit, Gardena G-Trans, Norwalk Transit, Montebello Bus Lines, Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Culver CityBus, Foothill Transit • Metrolink Line: multiple Commuter rail lines connecting to cities located throughout the greater Los Angeles Region and cities within the Counties of Ventura, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside
• Amtrak: Interstate train service serving coastal and inland areas of California Transit use is higher in parts of the Los Angeles region where the greatest investment in transit service has been made, including the north coastal, central, and south bay regions of Los Angeles. Almost all major employment centers in Los Angeles County are served by some form of public transit. However, low-income employees, especially female heads of household with children, have unique travel patterns that may prevent them from obtaining work far from home, regardless of access to public transit. Generally, women are disproportionately responsible for household-supporting activities such as trips to grocery stores or accompanying young children to and from schools and day care.

According to 2021 ACS data 70 percent of county residents drive alone to work and 4.9 percent used public transportation. Furthermore, county residents have a longer average commute time (29.2 minutes) than the statewide averages (27.6 minutes). 318
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-41 August/September 2024
Local Trends
AllTransit is an online database that provides details on transit opportunity throughout the United States. The website uses metrics to understand the social and economic impact of transit, specifically looking at connectivity, access to jobs, and frequency of service.

According to Alltransit.com, Malibu has an overall performance score of 3.1, suggesting a low combination of trips per week and number of jobs accessible enabling few people to take transit to work. There is one bus route that runs along the Pacific Coast Highway (Route 134). The 134 bus (Malibu-PCH-Trancas) has 36 stops from Olympic Boulevard/7th Street in Santa Monica to Trancas Canyon/Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu. The bus takes about one hour from the Olympic Boulevard/7th Street in Santa Monica to the commercial center of Malibu, which is a constraint to lower-income employees who do not have access to a vehicle but work in Malibu.

Figure F-20 shows areas of the city within a one-half mile to transit. The eastern portion of Malibu has greater transit access than the western portion. The areas with lower transit access have a higher concentration of people with a disability (Figure F-7). Local organizations have reported that accessible transit is an issue in the city, particularly for lower-income and public sector employees who commute to the city from elsewhere in the region (see the Loal Knowledge section of this analysis).

The City provides paratransit services, called Dial -A-Ride, to Malibu seniors (60 years and older) and disabled residents through the City’s contracted service provider, Ventura Transit Systems. The Dial-A-Ride service provides transportation to the Malibu Senior Center, various locations in the city, and the neighboring cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, and the neighborhood of Westwood in Los Angeles. The program has two vans in service and provides approximately 25 to 30 rides, or 60 hours of service per month. The program is currently meeting the demand of residents and does not have a waitlist. To promote the program, the City displays banners in the Senior Center, advertises in the newspaper, provides give-a-ways with program information, and gives presentations and announcements at social and recreation programs. Program 3.3, Housing for Persons with Special Needs, directs the City to fund and promote transportation services available to seniors.

According to 2021 ACS data, 1.7 percent of residents used public transportation to commute to work, 59.8 percent drove alone, and 29.6 percent worked at home.

Compared to Los Angeles County, Malibu has a lower percentage of residents that drive alone and use public transportation when commuting to work, and a higher percentage of residents who work from home. According to the Healthy Places Index, a platform that provides open data on health equity indicators, Western Malibu has a higher rate of active commuting than central or eastern Malibu.15
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has a walkability index that ranks Census block groups.16 The EPA walkability map, shown in Figure F-21, shows that most of the city has a walkability score below the national average, but the area surrounding Point Dume and the southeastern corner of the city have an above average walkability score. 15 California Healthy Places Index. Active Commuting Indicator. https://map.healthyplacesindex.org/?redirect=false, accessed March 29, 2024.
16 EPA, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/national-walkability-index-user-guide-and-methodology 319
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-42 August/September 2024
Figure F-20
Access to Transit Within a Quarter Mile (Malibu)
Source: County of Los Angeles, 2023.
320
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-43 August/September 2024
Figure F-21
Walkability Index (Malibu)
Source: National Walkability Index, 2023.
321
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-44 August/September 2024
Educational Opportunity
Economics literature has consistently found about a 10 percent increase in wages/salary with each additional year of education.17 Therefore, educational attainment is directly linked to housing opportunities. To assess educational opportunities by geography, this analysis uses TCAC education domain scores, which incorporate a variety of indicators including math and reading proficiency scores, high school graduation rates, and student poverty rates at the census tract level.

Regional Trends
An overview of education outcomes across Los Angeles County is illustrated in Figure F-22. Educational outcomes vary across Los Angeles County. In general, urban areas within Central Los Angeles, Long Beach, and northwestern areas of the county, including the cities of Lancaster and Palmdale, had less positive education outcomes compared to the rest of the county. The coastal communities, including the cities of Santa Monica, Malibu, and Rancho Palos Verdes, as well as areas northeast of Downtown Los Angeles, and the northeastern portion of Los Angeles County, have higher educational outcomes.

According to Kidsdata.org, a data compilation program of the Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, Los Angeles County had a high school graduation rate of 82.4 percent. High school graduation rates were highest among Asian-American and Filipino students (94 percent) and white, non-Hispanic students (87 percent). American Indian/Alaska Native students (63 percent) and African American/Black students (73 percent) had lower graduation rates.18
Local Trends
Public schools in Malibu are part of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). The SMMUSD serves 8,820 students in grades K-12 in the cities of Malibu and Santa Monica. In addition to Malibu High School (grades 9-12) and Malibu Middle School (grades 6-8), which share a campus, Malibu has two public elementary schools (grades K-5): John L Webster Elementary School and Malibu Elementary School. According to the California School Dashboard, Malibu Elementary School located in Western Malibu has a higher percentage of socioeconomically disadvantaged19 students (16 percent) and English learners (11 percent) compared to Webster Elementary School, located in Eastern Malibu (10 percent and five percent, respectively). The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District had an overall high school graduation rate of 96.1 percent in 2021, higher than the county average. 20 According to the California School Dashboard, Asian American, English learners, Hispanic/Latino, and socioeconomically disadvantaged students had lower graduation rates than Black/African American, white, or students of 17 Annual Disability Statistics Compendium, 2020. https://disabilitycompendium.org/annualreport 18 Kids Data. 2021. All Data: Los Angeles County. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/364/los-angelescounty/results#ind=&say=&cat=18 19 Students who are eligible for free or reduced priced meals; or have parents/guardians who did not receive a high school diploma.
20 Kids Data. 2021. All Data: Malibu. https://www.kidsdata.org/region/720/malibu/results#ind=&say=&cat=18 322
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-45 August/September 2024
two or more races. 21 Approximately 26 percent of all students in the district are socioeconomically disadvantaged. According to GreatSchools, an online database that provides data on school quality, Malibu High School has above average test scores and levels of college readiness.22 The GreatSchools equity indicators show that underserved students at Malibu High School perform better than the state average on tests and college readiness. However, there are differences within the school based on race and ethnicity and household income. Malibu High School is reported as 76 percent white, 14 percent Hispanic/Latino, five percent two or more races, two percent Black/African American, two percent Asian American, and less than one percent Native American/Pacific Islander. Twelve percent of students are from low-income households.

At Malibu High School, Hispanic/Latino students and students from lower-income households are less likely to be eligible for state college or university upon graduation than white students and students from higher-income households. Students with disabilities that attend Malibu High School have higher rates of absenteeism compared to the state average.23
While all areas in Malibu have positive educational outcomes, Eastern Malibu has slightly higher positive educational scores than Western Malibu, as shown in Figure F-19.

However, this data may be impacted by the inclusion of unincorporated land in this census tract and may not accurately represent conditions in the city. Eastern Malibu also has the highest percentage of children in married couple households (Figure F-12), as well as households with the highest median incomes, suggesting that educational opportunity is segregated by income and family composition. Disparities in access to educational opportunity for low-income households is exacerbated by the lack of housing options in the city due to the high cost of owner and rental housing. Program 5.1 identifies actions the City will take to increase housing mobility, which will increase access to greater educational opportunities.
21 California School Dashboard. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified: Academic Engagement. https://www.caschooldashboard.org/reports/19649800000000/2023/academic-engagement#graduation-rate, accessed March 29, 2024.
22 GreatSchools. Malibu High School. https://www.greatschools.org/california/malibu/2925-Malibu-HighSchool/#Equity_overview, accessed March 29, 2024. 23 Ibid. 323
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-46 August/September 2024
Figure F-22
TCAC Opportunity Areas – Education Outcomes (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
324
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-47 August/September 2024
Figure F-23
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Education Outcomes (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
325
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-48 August/September 2024
Employment
Housing opportunities are directly related to economic opportunities. Access to high quality employment close to desired and affordable housing results in more housing opportunities and shorter commute times. The analysis for economic opportunities uses TCAC economic indicators, employment participation data from the ACS and the HUD Jobs Proximity Index.

TCAC economic opportunities are measured by census tract and considers poverty, adult education, employment, job proximity, and median home values. A higher economic index score reflects more positive economic outcomes. The HUD Jobs Proximity Index assesses the accessibility to job opportunities at the census block group level.

Regional Trends
Economic outcomes vary across Los Angeles County as shown in Figure F-24. Areas with more positive economic outcome scores were identified along the coastal communities and portions of east Los Angeles County. Conversely, similar to educational outcomes, the urban areas in Central Los Angeles, Long Beach, and northwestern areas of the county had less positive economic outcomes.

According to 2021 ACS estimates, Los Angeles County has an employment rate of 90.8 percent, a decrease of two percent from 2019. Table F-8 shows employment status by disability status estimates for Los Angeles County for ACS 2015-2019 and 2017-2021.

Overall, the percentage of all employed residents aged 16 remained the same, but unemployment increased slightly.

Table F-8 Employment Status by Disability Status (Los Angeles County) Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 4,502,627
(96.4%)
274,277
(91.5%)
4,187,832
(95.5%)
396,066
(87.7%)
With a Disability 169,322
(3.6%)
25,535
(8.0%)
197,504
(3.2%)
45,578
(8.0%)
Total 4,671,949
(93.9%)
299,812
(6.0%)
4,385,336
(90.8%)
441,644
(9.2%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017- 2021 Estimates.

Local Trends
Economic outcomes are positive throughout Malibu, as shown in Figure F-25. As of 2021, the employment rate in Malibu is 94.4 percent, slightly higher than the County employment rate. In 2021, the largest industries for employees in Malibu are professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services (25 percent of employed population); educational services, and health care and social 326
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-49 August/September 2024
assistance (17 percent); and finance and insurance, and real estate and rental leasing (13 percent).

Employment status by disability status estimates is provided in Table F-9. The labor participation rate of residents aged 16 and older decreased by approximately two percent, similar to the county’s rate of change. The number of employed residents with a disability decreased by almost three percent, while employment for residents without a disability increased. However, the number of unemployed residents with a disability remained the same at zero percent. The total unemployment rate (2.9 percent) in 2021 is lower than the county (3.9 percent) and the Southern California region (9.3 percent).

Table F-9
Employment Status by Disability Status (Malibu)
Disability Status
Employed
2015-2019
Unemployed
2015 -2019
Employed
2017-2021
Unemployed
2017-2021
No Disability 4,772
(96.0%)
205
(100%)
3,907
(97.9%)
236
(100%)
With a Disability 249
(4.9%)
0 (0%)
83 (2.1%)
0 (0%)
Total 5,021
(96.1%)
205
(3.9%)
3,990
(94.4%)
236
(5.6%)
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, American Community Survey (ACS), Table C18120 Employment Status by Disability Status, 2015-2019, 2017- 2021 Estimates.
327
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-50 August/September 2024
Figure F-24
TCAC Opportunity Areas - Economic (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023.
328
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-51 August/September 2024
Figure F-25
TCAC Opportunity Areas – Economic (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
329
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-52 August/September 2024
Healthy Environment
Healthy Environment in AFFH addresses disparities in access to environmentally healthy neighborhoods by protected class groups. An assessment of environmentally healthy neighborhoods can include air and water quality, safety, environmental hazards, social services, and cultural institutions. Recent California laws—Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, Senate Bill (SB) 535 and SB 1000 emphasize the importance of environmental justice as a fair housing issue. Environmental Justice, according to HUD, means ensuring that people have equal access to safe and healthy housing. HUD requires all entitlement jurisdictions to conduct reviews under the National Environmental Protection Act to determine if a proposed project creates adverse impacts due to environmental conditions. It furthers the requirement that human health deserves equal protection for all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income. Under Executive Order 12898, Federally assisted projects may also target funding to communities that have disproportionately high and adverse human health impacts on minority and low-income populations due to environmental conditions. 24 The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment developed CalEnviroScreen, a mapping tool that uses spatial data collected by various regulatory agencies (e.g., air quality indicators from South Coast Air Quality Management District, water quality indicators from Orange County Water District, monitored chemical releases into the air or water table from Environmental Protection Agency, HUD socio-economic indicators, etc.). The dataset uses a methodology to identify communities disproportionately burdened by exposures to pollution, environmental effects of existing pollutants in communities, among other indicators of sensitive populations or socioeconomic factors. Residents in census tracts with high CalEnviroScreen scores (shown as percentiles) are disproportionately burdened by pollution and are more vulnerable to related effects.

Regional Trends
According to CalEnviroScreen data, areas with higher pollution percentiles are generally urban areas with higher proportions of LMI and overcrowded households. Areas experiencing the highest pollution percentile scores in the Los Angeles region are as the cities of Baldwin Park, El Monte and South El Monte in the San Gabriel Valley, neighborhoods and cities located south of Downtown Los Angeles, and in the Pacoima and Sylmar neighborhoods of the San Fernando Valley (Figure F-26). The areas of Los Angeles County with lower scores (i.e., low exposure to pollution and high household income) are near the county boundaries and along the coast.

Local Trends
The City of Malibu has a low environmental pollution burden. This is likely due to the lack of industrial uses and the lack of truck routes through Malibu that generate pollutants in other areas in Southern California. Pacific Coast Highway has a permanent truck ban from Topanga Canyon Road (Route 27) to Decker Road (Route 23).

Throughout the entire city, the CalEnviroScreen score percentile ranges between zero and 30. The majority of the city scores below the 20th percentile, while a small portion of city between Malibu Canyon Road and Latigo Canyon Road scores between the 20th 24 HUD, 2022. https://www.hudexchange.info/programs/environmental-review/environmental-justice/ 330
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-53 August/September 2024
and 40th percentile, as shown in Figure F-27. This area overlaps with the TCAC Opportunity Areas data for environmental outcomes, with the central portion of the city having less positive environmental outcomes than the western and eastern portion of the city (Figure F-28). The TCAC environmental outcomes map shows that Census Tract 8005.04 has the lowest environmental outcomes of all census tracts that overlap with the city boundaries.

This area has more multifamily housing and commercial uses than other areas of the city, which could account for lower environmental outcomes due to traffic congestion and/or regional smog. This Census Tract also has the highest concentration of LMI residents (Figure F-15), which suggests that lower-income households may be more likely to reside in areas with less positive environmental outcomes.
331
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-54 August/September 2024
Figure F-26
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Los Angeles County) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
332
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-55 August/September 2024
Figure F-27
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentile Scores (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
333
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-56 August/September 2024
Figure F-28
TCAC Opportunity Areas – Environment (Malibu)

Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
334
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-57 August/September 2024
Disproportionate Housing Needs
Disproportionate housing needs refers to a condition in which there are significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need, or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area. To analyze the extent of disproportionate housing needs in Malibu, this section reviews data on housing cost burden and severe housing cost burden, overcrowding, homelessness, and substandard housing conditions. Information for this section relies on the HUD CHAS data.

Housing Cost Burden
Housing cost burden is defined as the proportion of a household’s total gross income spent on housing costs. Households that spend at least 30 percent of their total gross income on housing costs (rent, mortgage, utilities, and other housing-related costs) are considered “cost burdened,” and households spending over 50 percent on housing costs are considered “severely cost burdened.” The higher the housing cost burden, the more likely residents are to live in overcrowded and substandard conditions and are less likely to afford to relocate. Low-income households and persons in protected classes disproportionately experience severe housing problems.

Regional Trends
According to HUD CHAS estimates, 33.7 percent of owner-occupied households and 52.8 percent of renter-occupied households are burdened by housing costs.

Figure F-29 shows areas of Los Angeles County where renter households experience housing cost burden (spending more than 30 percent of household income on housing costs). As shown, paying more than 30 percent of gross income on rent is widespread across Los Angeles County. There are many areas where between 40 and 80 percent of renter households are housing cost burdened. Neighborhoods in South-Central City of Los Angeles have census tracts where at least 60 percent of renter households are burdened by housing costs. In contrast, renter households in coastal areas, where median incomes tend to be higher, generally experience less housing cost burden.

Overpayment amongst homeowners is also widespread across the county, as shown in Figure F-30. Housing cost burden among homeowners is most prevalent in South-Central City of Los Angeles and in eastern Los Angeles County, especially in the cities of Industry, El Monte, and Huntington Park
Local Trends
According to HUD CHAS estimates, 34.9 percent of residents are cost burdened, and 20.2 percent are severely cost burdened, as shown in Table F-11. Cost burden is significantly higher among low-income households than high-income households. 335
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-58 August/September 2024
Table F-10
Housing Cost Burden by Income Level (Malibu)
Household Income Cost Burden >30% Cost Burden >50% Total <30% AMI 500
(64.1%)
465
(59.6%)
780
(100%)
>30% to <50% AMI 210
(79.2%)
180
(67.9%)
265
(100%)
>50% to <80% AMI 190
(60.3%)
125
(39.7%)
315
(100%)
>80% to <100% AMI 165
(60.0%)
50 (18.1%)
275
(100%)
>100% AMI 740
(20.9%)
230
(6.5%)
3,530
(100%)
Total 1,805
(34.9%)
1,045
(20.2%)
5,170
(100%)
Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2016-2020 Estimates.

Of owner-occupied units, 32.8 percent of owner-occupied are cost-burdened and 30.2 percent of renter-occupied households are burdened by housing costs.

As shown in Figure F-31, the area with the highest levels of renter cost burden is in the in the eastern potion the city east of Las Flores Canyon Road, where between 60 and 80 percent of renters are burdened by housing costs. However, the data may be affected due to the inclusion of unincorporated County land in the census tract and may not accurately reflect differences within the city’s population. The western portion of the city has the lowest levels of cost burden by renters, with less than 20 percent of renter households experiencing cost burden. These areas in the western portion of the city also have the highest population with a disability (Figure F-7). Conversely, housing cost burden by homeowners is lowest in the eastern portion of the city, where 20 to 40 percent of homeowners are cost burdened. This area also has some of the highest median incomes in the city (Figure F-14). West of Las Flores Canyon Road, between 40 to 60 of homeowners are cost burdened, as shown in Figure F-32.
336
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-59 August/September 2024
Figure F-29
Overpayment by Renters (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
337
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-60 August/September 2024
Figure F-30
Overpayment by Homeowners (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
338
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-61 August/September 2024
Figure F-31
Overpayment by Renters (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
339
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-62 August/September 2024
Figure F-32
Overpayment by Homeowners (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
340
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-63 August/September 2024
Overcrowding
Overcrowding is defined as housing units with more than one person per room (including dining and living rooms but excluding bathrooms and kitchen) while severe overcrowding refers to more than 1.5 persons per room. Overcrowding is a measure to understand the needs of large families, defined as five or more persons per household.

Generally, large households have special housing needs due to lower per capita income and the need for housing with three or more bedrooms.

Some large households may not be able to accommodate high-cost burdens for housing and accept housing with too few rooms. Potential fair housing issues emerge if nontraditional households are discouraged or denied housing due to a perception of overcrowding. Household overcrowding reflects various living situations, including housing units that are inadequately sized to meet a household’s needs; the necessity or desire to have extended family members reside in an existing household; or unrelated individuals or families that share a single housing unit.

Not only is overcrowding a potential fair housing concern, but it can also potentially strain electrical systems in older housing that have not been updated or contribute to a shortage of parking. As a result, some property owners/managers may be more hesitant to rent to large households, thus making access to adequately sized housing even more difficult. Fair housing issues may arise from policies aimed to limit overcrowding that have a disparate impact on specific racial or ethnic groups with different preferences for housing size and/or ability to pay according to the household size standards identified.

Regional Trends
According to ACS 2021 estimates, approximately 11 percent of households in the county are overcrowded and five percent are severely overcrowded. Overcrowding is present throughout the county, particularly in the communities of South-Central Los Angeles, in eastern Los Angeles County near the cities of El Monte and Baldwin Park, and in the San Fernando Valley. Coastal areas tend to have lower rates of overcrowding, as shown in Figure F-33.

Local Trends
The rate of overcrowding is low throughout the City of Malibu. Figure F-34 shows overcrowded households in Malibu. Approximately one percent of all households in the city are overcrowded, and less than one percent are severely overcrowded. All overcrowding in the city is experienced in owner-occupied households. 341
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-64 August/September 2024
Figure F-33
Overcrowded Households (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
342
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-65 August/September 2024
Figure F-34
Overcrowded Households (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
343
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-66 August/September 2024
Housing Problems
HUD considers housing units to be “standard units” if they are in compliance with local building codes. Many federal and State programs use the age of housing as a factor to determine a community’s housing rehabilitation needs. Housing age can be an important indicator of housing condition in a community. Like any other tangible asset, housing is subject to gradual physical or technological deterioration over time. If not properly and regularly maintained, housing can deteriorate and discourage reinvestment, depress neighboring property values, and eventually impact the quality of life in a neighborhood. Typically, housing over 30 years old is more likely to have rehabilitation needs that may include replacing plumbing, roof repairs, foundation work, and other repairs. Housing units built before 1978 may have health risks such as leadbased paint and asbestos. Housing issues prompted by disrepair such as mold may elevate health conditions such as asthma.

Regional Trends
Housing problems are defined as units having incomplete kitchen facilities, incomplete plumbing facilities, more than one person per room, and households with a cost burden greater than 30 percent. Severe housing problems are defined as all of the above and with a cost burden greater than 50 percent.25
Approximately 50 percent of households in Los Angeles County experience housing problems, and 32 percent experience severe housing problems.

A housing unit is considered substandard by the ACS if it lacks complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.5 percent of occupied housing units in Los Angeles County lack complete plumbing facilities and 1.6 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

Seventy-three percent of Los Angeles County’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. Only

3.4 percent of the county’s current housing stock was constructed in the last decade.

These units are potentially in need of repair and modernization improvements.

Additionally, lead-based paint was banned from residential uses in 1978. All houses constructed before 1978 are therefore considered at risk for containing lead-based paint.

Local Trends
According to 2021 ACS estimates, approximately 34 percent of households in Malibu experience housing problems and 19 percent of total households experience severe housing problems. These rates are significantly lower than the percentages of households experiencing housing problems in the county.

According to the 2017-2021 ACS, 0.7 percent of all occupied housing units in Malibu lack complete plumbing facilities and 0.9 percent lack complete kitchen facilities.

Sixty-four percent of Malibu’s housing stock was built prior to 1980. Only 2.4 percent of the city’s current housing stock was constructed in the last decade. As noted in Chapter 7.2, 25 HUD, 2021. https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp/CHAS/bg_chas.html 344
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-67 August/September 2024
Housing Needs Assessment, the majority of units are well-maintained due to high property values, although it is estimated that 10 units are in need of rehabilitation. Additionally, the 2018 Woolsey fire destroyed approximately 488 homes. Concentrated areas of substandard housing in Malibu are in the eastern part of the city, mainly east of Malibu Canyon Road and along the Pacific Coast Highway near Topanga Canyon. Program 1.3 Housing Rehabilitation Assistance directs resources to households that need rehabilitation assistance.

Persons Experiencing Homelessness
Nationally and in Los Angeles County, homelessness has become an increasingly significant issue. Many factors are identified as contributing to the increase in homeless populations.

State law (Section 65583(a)(7)) requires municipalities to address the special needs of persons experiencing homelessness within their boundaries. “Homelessness,” as defined by HUD, describes the condition of an individual, who is not imprisoned or otherwise detained, who:
• Lacks a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence; and • Has a primary nighttime residence that is:
• A supervised publicly or privately operated shelter designed to provide temporary living accommodations (including welfare hotels, congregate shelters, and transitional housing for the mentally ill); • An institution that provides a temporary residence for individuals intended to be institutionalized; or
• A public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.

Regional Trends
The 2023 Greater Los Angeles Point-in-Time (PIT) Summary by the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority (LAHSA) provides the most recent evaluation of people experiencing homelessness in the county. According to the 2023 PIT count, there are 75,518 people experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County (sheltered and unsheltered), an increase of 6,374 people (nine percent) from 2022. Approximately 26 percent of individuals in this count are sheltered adults and youth, 70 percent are unsheltered adults, and three precent are unsheltered youth.26 Thirty percent reported a substance abuse issue, and 25 percent are experiencing serious mental illness.

The proportion of Black/African American persons experiencing homelessness in Los Angeles County (31.7 percent) far exceeds their relative proportion in the county’s population (7.1 percent). American Indian/Alaskan Native residents and Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander residents are also overrepresented in the homeless population count compared to the respective county population share. 26 Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority. 2023 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count Deck. 2023. https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=7232-2023-greater-los-angeles-homeless-count-deck, accessed August, 2023. 345
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-68 August/September 2024
Los Angeles voters passed Proposition HHH in 2016, which enabled City officials to issue $1.2 billion in bonds for the development of permanent supportive housing units for people experiencing homelessness. In addition to funding permanent supportive housing development, the bonds can be used to help build temporary shelters.27 Local Trends
The preliminary data from the January 2024 homeless survey 28 conducted by LAHSA showed 51 people experiencing homelessness in Malibu, the lowest number since 2016, when the City began participating in the count, and a 30 percent decline since the 2023 count. The data follows reports from the City's Homeless Outreach Team through The People Concern that they helped 51 people in Malibu exit homelessness in 2023 through placement in permanent and interim housing, or family reunification.

Detailed information about persons experiencing homelessness is unavailable for the 2024 count. Data for the 2020 count (most recent available data) showed that most unsheltered persons resided on the street (43 percent) and in vans (approximately 20 percent). The remaining unsheltered persons resided in cars (18 percent), in RVs/Campers (12 percent), and in tents/makeshift shelters (seven percent). Malibu represents 0.11 percent of the county’s population but has 0.14 percent of the county's population experiencing homelessness (2022 data). Therefore, Malibu has a disproportionately higher percentage of the county’s unhoused population.

Demographic data from the homeless survey conducted by LAHSA is compiled by LASHSA Service Planning Area (SPA). Malibu is in SPA 5 West Side, which includes Bel Air, Beverly Hills, Beverly Crest, Beverly Glen, Brentwood, Century City, Culver City, Holmby Hills, Laurel Canyon, Malibu, Mar Vista, Marina Del Rey, Manchester, Pacific Palisades, Palms, Rancho Park, Santa Monica, South Robertson, Venice, Westchester, and Westwood. Demographic data for SPA 5 is available for the 2023 survey, which estimated 5,712 total unhoused individuals (unsheltered and sheltered). Most (68 percent) were male. Nine percent were under the age of 18 and eight percent were over the age of

65. In terms of race and ethnicity, 24 percent were Hispanic/Latino, one percent was American Indian/Alaska Native, three percent Asian, 30 percent were Black/African American, one percent was Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, 37 percent were white, and four percent were multiple races. In comparison, Malibu’s population is eight percent Hispanic/Latino, 81 percent white alone (not Hispanic/Latino), three percent Asian, one percent Black/African American, five percent multiple races, and less than one percent American Indian/Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander.29 While comparison between the unhoused population of SPA 5 and the population of Malibu is not a direct comparison, it can be assumed that Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino racial and ethnic categories are likely overrepresented among the unhoused residents in Malibu. This data suggests that Black/African American and 27 Local Housing Solutions. 2024. https://localhousingsolutions.org/housing-policy-case-studies/los-angeles-propositionhhh/ 28 City of Malibu, https://www.malibucity.org/homelessness, accessed April, 2024 29 U.S. Census data. 2023. Table P9. https://data.census.gov/table/DECENNIALDHC2020.P9?t=Race%20and%20Ethnicity&g=160XX00US0645246 346
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-69 August/September 2024
Hispanic/Latino residents are at higher risk for displacement compared to other racial and ethnic groups.

For adult individuals over the age of 18 in SPA 5, 23 percent had a substance abuse disorder, two percent reported having HIV/AIDS, 26 percent reported a serious mental illness, 10 percent had a developmental disability, and 22 percent had a physical disability. In comparison, nine percent of all Californian residents met the criteria for a substance abuse disorder (2022 data), and less than one percent of all Californian residents live with diagnosed HIV infection (2021 data), which implies overrepresentation of these characteristics among the unhoused residents in SPA 5.30 In addition, 48 percent of individuals in SPA 5 reported having experienced domestic/intimate partner violence and 11 percent reported being homeless due to fleeing a domestic/intimate partner violence situation. 31
Malibu partners with The Malibu Community Assistance Resource Team (CART) and The People Concern to bring resources to people experiencing homelessness in the city.

Malibu CART provides ongoing dinner and lunch programs, vaccinations, mobile eye clinics, home transition supplies, shelter transport, and hygiene items for people experiencing homelessness. Additionally, Our Lady of Malibu Church and other local churches and synagogues provide a Monday Afternoon Community Meal, collect and distribute clothing, offer shower and support services, and host thanksgiving dinner.

Standing on Stone (S.O.S.) partners with local churches to host dinners for the homeless.

There are no emergency shelters within city limits. According to local service providers, there is a concentration of people experiencing homelessness within the Civic Center and Legacy Park. A significant portion of the unhoused population are older individuals who have been homeless for decades and desire to remain in the city. Most of the population experiencing homelessness did not live in Malibu before becoming homeless but have arrived in the area for various reasons. However, some individuals resided in Malibu before becoming homeless, but lost their housing during the Woolsey Fire. In these circumstances, it is common that these residents resided on another resident’s property in a guest home or trailer. Although housing vouchers were provided after the fire to all residents, not all displaced residents participated in the assistance program.

In February 2024, according to the latest report by The People Concern, the total number of contacts made by the Homeless Outreach Team was 258, with 72 unduplicated contacts. Fourteen individuals were contacted in permanent or temporary housing. Of the 54 unduplicated contacts currently residing on the streets, two were new contacts, with one of them becoming a repeat contact. There are currently 29 contacts considered in various stages of engagement, and 25 are currently refusing services. The outreach team continues to contact these individuals with the goal of getting them engaged in the housing process.32
30 California Health Care Foundation. 2022. California Health Care Almanac; California Department of Public Health. 2023. The California HIV Surveillance Report https://www.chcf.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/01/SubstanceUseDisorderAlmanac2022.pdf 31 LAHSA. 2023 Greater Los Angeles Homeless Count – SPA 5. https://www.lahsa.org/documents?id=7685-spa-5-hc2023- data-summary 32 The People Concern. February 2024. https://www.malibucity.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/716 347
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-70 August/September 2024
To address the issue of homelessness in Malibu, the City has maintained a proactive, service-driven approach that strategically bridges outreach and enforcement while considering impacts on the community. Some of those measures include the development of a strategic plan, increased collaboration with stakeholders throughout Los Angeles County, establishing a Homelessness Task Force, securing interim shelter bed opportunities for people experiencing homelessness in Malibu, and the formation of a working group to strengthen cooperation between the various agencies and organizations providing assistance within the community. The City currently provides funding for an Outreach Team and a Housing Navigator who work with landlords and shelter facilities throughout Los Angeles County to help people experiencing homelessness get off the streets and into housing. City staff conduct routine field checks to prevent the formation of new encampments, address public safety concerns related to homeless encampments in partnership with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and properly assist those who are experiencing homelessness in the city.33 There are no interim beds in Malibu. The closest shelter is in Santa Monica, where the City contracts for three beds available to Malibu residents. As a result, the Malibu Library is an unofficial base to provide services to those experiencing homelessness. Service providers acknowledged that while there is a beneficial working relationship between the providers, the Sheriff’s Department, City staff, and community volunteers, the lack of interim or emergency housing in the city creates challenges to providing adequate service coordination for their clients.

The City adopted and is currently implementing the Homelessness Strategic Plan to help guide and coordinate efforts to prevent and alleviate homelessness in Malibu. The Malibu Homelessness Working Group, comprised of City staff, outreach workers, the faith community, and residents, meets monthly to review community and City efforts to execute the Plan. The City funds two dedicated, full-time outreach workers from The People Concern to conduct outreach and offer services to the homeless population in Malibu. These outreach workers engage with and perform outreach to homeless individuals and families on the streets, hillsides, and beaches of Malibu and provide case management services. The outreach workers assess the needs of these individuals and connect them with, or provide referrals to, local services, housing, and resources. The Outreach Team performs its activities eight hours per day, five days a week, beginning in the early morning when homeless individuals are most likely to be engaged. The Outreach Team operates throughout the city and focuses outreach where homeless individuals are likely to be, such as within the Civic Center and Legacy Park.

Additionally, the Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments (COG), comprised of the Cities of Agoura Hills, Calabasas, Hidden Hills, Malibu, and Westlake village, was awarded Los Angeles County Measure H funds to hire a homelessness outreach worker to serve the five cities. The COG outreach worker coordinates with other service providers operating in Malibu through joint operations in the field and through the Malibu Homelessness Working Group.

Given the low number of people experiencing homelessness relative to the extensive level of services provided by service organizations and the City, adequate services exist 33 City of Malibu. 2024. https://www.malibucity.org/homelessness 348
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-71 August/September 2024
to serve people experiencing homelessness, and there are no gaps in providing services locally.

Displacement
Displacement, as defined by HCD, is used to describe any involuntary household move caused by landlord action or market changes. Shifts in neighborhood composition are often framed and perpetuated by established patterns of racial inequity and segregation. Movement of people, public policies, and investments, such as capital improvements and planned transit stops, and flows of private capital can lead to displacement. Displacement is fueled by a combination of rising housing costs, rising income inequality, stagnant wages, and insufficient market-rate housing production.

Decades of disinvestment in low-income communities, coupled with investor speculation, can result in a rent gap or a disparity between current rental income of the land, and potentially achievable rental income if the property is converted to its most profitable use. These processes can disproportionally impact people of color, as well as lower income households, persons with disabilities, large households, and persons at-risk or experiencing homelessness.34
Regional Trends
Regionally, much of Los Angeles County is considered vulnerable to displacement due to increases in housing costs combined with disparities in earned income and access to opportunity. Within the City of Los Angeles, most neighborhoods in the South-Central area and East Los Angeles experience high displacement risk. Within the San Gabriel Valley, cities such as El Monte and Montebello have high displacement risk. Most of the suburban, rural, and coastal communities have lower displacement risk, as shown in Figure F-35.

Local Trends
According to UDP, all of Malibu has a low risk of displacement, as shown in Figure F-36.However, those with high cost burden, particularly low-income households are at risk for displacement as there is no rent restricted housing within the city and no use of HCVs. Some households have been displaced in recent years by environmental disasters, such as the Woolsey Fire in 2018. Some have been unable to return due to the high cost of land and rebuilding. According to input from service providers, there is an upward trend of more women and more seniors becoming homeless. Lower-income residents, who may have had lower rent in private homes or apartments are vulnerable to displacement due to rental increases or changes in ownership. Residents in non-family households may be most at risk. Service providers acknowledged that displaced residents may lack knowledge of housing resources and/or may feel uncomfortable reaching out for assistance. To provide more housing opportunities in the city for low- and moderate-income households, the City will allow up to two Junior ADUs (JADUs) per single-family lot (Program 4.1.f). JADUs are a maximum of 500 square feet in size and are contained in the existing or proposed single-family structure. Allowing up to two JADUs may provide relatively affordable rental options in private homes. 34 HCD. 2021. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 349
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-72 August/September 2024
Figure F-35
Displacement Risk (Los Angeles County)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
350
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-73 August/September 2024
Figure F-36
Displacement Risk (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
351
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-74 August/September 2024
Local Data and Knowledge
Regional
Patterns of racial segregation are the byproduct of local and federal policies, private housing discrimination, and community prejudice. To understand present challenges to fair housing, it is necessary to review the history of actions that have led to regional patterns of segregation.

Starting in the 1930s, communities in the Los Angeles region were impacted by redlining, which is the practice of discriminating against loan borrowers based on the racial or socioeconomic status of the neighborhood in which a property is located. Redlining, a government-sponsored system of denying mortgage loans and services to finance the purchase of homes in specific areas, served as a tool to limit homeownership opportunities, as federally insured and long-term mortgages were routinely denied to persons seen as “undesirable,” often non-white persons. Redlining directed both public and private capital to white households and away from Black/African American, nonwhite, immigrant, and Jewish households. As homeownership is one of the most significant means of intergenerational wealth building in the United States, these redlining practices had long-term effects in creating wealth inequalities.35 A federal agency called the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation created residential security maps in the 1930s throughout American cities to support the Federal Housing Administration and its new mortgage program. These maps designated certain neighborhoods as desirable or not worth investment based on several factors. These included housing age, condition, and value, as well as proximity to services, amenities, and transportation. “Security” levels were color-coded from green (least risk), blue, yellow, and red (highest level of risk). Problematically, the key factors in determining risk were race and ethnicity. Neighborhoods with a multicultural community, recent immigrants, or families of color were severely downgraded or redlined. Areas that saw the majority populations of white residents were either left unmarked or were given a high-desirability rating. These maps documented the perceived risk of lending and determined the lending practices of banks and other mortgage lenders administering the federal loans. This led to disinvestment in cities and a loss of wealth building for generations of American families. This practice of racial exclusion from homeownership allowed white Americans to accumulate wealth through government backed homeownership while minority communities were excluded and marginalized. Over eighty years later, 74 percent of neighborhoods color coded red are low to moderate income today and nearly 64 percent are minority neighborhoods now.36 35 Mapping Inequality: Redlining in New Deal America. https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/redlining/#loc=14/34.067/- 118.143&city=los-angeles-ca&area=C127 36 HOLC “Redlining Maps,” The persistent Structure of Segregation and Economic Inequality, NCRC, Bruce Mitchell, PhD.

Accessed: January 5, 2022, https://ncrc.org/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2018/02/NCRC-Research-HOLC-10.pdf 352
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-75 August/September 2024
Local
Malibu was first settled by the Chumash peoples. Spanish explorers reached the canyon now known as Malibu Creek in approximately 1776 and Rancho Malibu was established.

In 1904, the Southern Pacific Railroad applied to the Interstate Commerce Commission to build tracks linking the Long Wharf in Santa Monica with the northern tracks that ended in Santa Barbara through the area of Malibu. To prevent a public railroad from going through the land, the owner of the land (the Rindge family) built a private railroad that extended near the eastern boundary of the ranch near Las Flores Canyon and ended near Yerba Buena Canyon in Ventura County. Efforts by the Rindge family to prevent development on the ranch continued with a battle over the Pacific Coast Highway.

After several lengthy court battle that lasted 25 years, the Roosevelt Highway (now called the Pacific Coast Highway) opened to the public in 1929.37 Despite the Rindge’s efforts to keep their land isolated from the public, with the establishment of the highway, a large labor force from Santa Monica became accessible, as did the transportation to and from rail and shipping centers in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, and San Pedro. In 1968, the Rindge family donated 138 acres to Pepperdine University for the construction of the school’s new campus near present-day Malibu. The first students of the Malibu Campus entered school on September 6, 1972, with an incoming class of 867 students.

Prior to the development of the roadway network, Malibu was mainly used for grazing cattle or transversing the beach to travel to other areas of the county. The urban development of Malibu started with the sale of the La Costa area in 1928 for the establishment of the Malibu Movie Colony. Land was leased and later sold to movie stars.

Today, the Malibu Movie Colony is a gated community. While Malibu was not included in the HOLC maps, the Malibu Movie Colony (now Malibu Colony) had racial covenants attached to the sale of the land, prohibiting occupation or use by any non-white person. 38 In 1948, the United States Supreme Court ruled that racial covenants were unconstitutional (Shelley v. Kraemer). In 2022, Assembly Bill 1466 was enacted to redact unlawfully restrictive covenants from all property records in the State of California.

The City was incorporated in 1991, long after urbanization and low-density land use patterns, exclusive nature, and single-family homes had been established. By then, Malibu had long been famous for its beaches, surfing and celebrity culture, and highprofile houses. Large-scale multi-family residential development has been, and continues to be, limited by geographic limitations, including steep slopes and infrastructure concerns, mainly the ability to provide septic systems with sufficient capacity or connect to the City’s limited wastewater system.

The high price of real estate, limited transportation options, and lack of accessibility due to the topography and environmental constraints has prevented lower-income nonwhite populations from moving into the city. These challenges have exacerbated 37 Doyle, W.T, Doyle T., Laubach, C., May, F., Merrick, J. Pfeifer, L., Rindge, R., Ringer, J.. The Story of Malibu. https://www.malibucity.org/106/History-of-Malibu, accessed August, 2023. 38 History News Network. The Racist History of Malibu. 2009. https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/118349, accessed August, 2023
353
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-76 August/September 2024
segregation by race and income between Malibu and the rest of Los Angeles County.

Stakeholder Input
As part of the Housing Element update, the City held a virtual workshop and two public meetings in the summer of 2021. Notices were sent to non-profit housing providers, housing advocates, and fair housing organizations. The most common issues raised during the Housing Element update process included the following:
• Insufficient affordable housing for lower-income persons who work in Malibu • Effect of short-term rentals on the supply of housing • High cost of development in Malibu
• Consideration of the exceptional constraints on housing development in Malibu including high fire hazards, environmentally sensitive habitat areas, geological hazards, flood hazards, water supply, lack of a communitywide wastewater system, limited roadway access, and problems caused by sea level rise.

In April 2024, the City held meetings with two social service organizations: The People Concern and Malibu CART, both of which work primarily with people experiencing homelessness and lower-income residents. The following issues were raised at the meetings:
• Lower-income and moderate-income employees in the city have difficulty commuting into the city, especially via public transit, and cannot afford housing in the city. The long commute time has led to high staff turnover for public sector and lower-income positions. Lower-income employees working temporary jobs (for example, in construction) sometimes choose to sleep in their vehicles on the street rather than commute the long distance home every day. • Unhoused residents without vehicles have difficulty locating shelter and accessing services.

Other Relevant Factors
Other factors to fair housing issues in Malibu that have not been previously discussed in this analysis include lack of infrastructure and environmental factors. Development within the city is constrained by numerous land features including steep slopes, environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs), geologic instability, flood hazards, and extreme wildfire hazards. Although the city is characterized by a large amount of vacant land, only a small portion of that land is suitable for development due to these natural constraints. As shown in Figure F-37, almost the entire city is within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Approximately 488 homes in the city were lost in the Woolsey Fire in 2018.

Development in steeply sloping properties requires substantial modification to the natural terrain, which significantly adds to the cost of development. Development on the steep hillsides also adds to erosion and landslide potential. 354
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-77 August/September 2024
Figure F-37
Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Malibu)
Source: AFFH Viewer, 2023
355
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-78 August/September 2024
Additionally, the entire city lies within the Coastal Zone as defined by the California Coastal Act of 1976 39 . All new single-family residences and multi-family residential development in the city require a Coastal Development Permit pursuant to the development requirements of the LCP, which limits grading on steep slopes and encroachment into environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHAs). Development is also constrained by federal and state laws (e.g., Federal Emergency Management Agency floodplain regulations, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act; and California Fish and Game Code and Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act). Because of these constraints, a large portion of the city remains undeveloped and rural in character.

Growth is also severely limited by the lack of a centralized sewer system. The majority of the housing stock is served by private onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Access to Home Ownership
To understand current racial/ethnic disparities among homeownership opportunities, this analysis reviews mortgage application filing and acceptance by race using the latest available data. As shown in Table F-11, there were 1,381 mortgage applications filed in Malibu in 2021. Of the racial/ethnic categorization of mortgage applications, almost half were filed by non-Hispanic white residents. In comparison, Hispanic/Latino and Asian American/API applicants comprised approximately three percent each, and Black/African-American, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan Native applicants comprised less than one percent of total mortgage loan applications combined.

No racial population were representative for mortgage applications relative to proportion of population. Asian American residents were overrepresented for mortgage applications (3.1 percent of applications, 2.8 percent of population), as were Black/African American residents (0.7 percent of applications, 0.5 percent of population), and Other/Unknown (48 percent of applications, 0.5 percent of population.

Hispanic/Latino residents were underrepresented for mortgage applications (2.6 percent of applications, 12 percent of population), as were non-Hispanic white residents (47.7 percent of applications, 77.1 percent of population).
39 California Public Resources Code, Division 20.
356
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-79 August/September 2024
Table F-11
Mortgage Applications and Acceptance by Race, 2021
Racial/
Ethnic Group
Application
Approved
but Not
Accepted
Application
Denied
Application
Withdrawn
by Applicant
File Closed for
Incompleteness
Loan
Originated
Other
Action
Total
Applications
American Indian or
Alaska Native, NonHispanic
0 0 0 0 1 0 1
(0.1%)
Native
Hawaiian/Other
Pacific Islander
0 1 0 0 4 0 5
(0.4%)
Asian
American/API, NonHispanic
1 3 11 0 27 1 43
(3.1%)
Black/AfricanAmerican, NonHispanic0 1 4 0 5 10
(0.7%)
Non-Hispanic White 13 87 137 30 382 10 659
(47.7%)
Hispanic/Latino 0 9 11 1 15 0 36
(2.6%)
Other/Unknown 8 373 64 23 155 40 663
(48%)
Total 22 465 216 53 574 51 1381
Notes: “Loan originated” means that the application was accepted a loan was made by a financial institution to the applicant. “File incomplete or withdrawn” means a loan was not originated because the application was withdrawn before a credit decision was made or the file was closed for incompleteness. “Application denied” means a loan was not originated because the financial institution did not approve the mortgage application. “Application approved but not accepted” means the financial institution approved the loan application but the applicant did not complete the transaction and a loan was not originated. Other categories of application actions were not included in this analysis, such as purchased loan, preapproval request denied, and preapproval request approved but not accepted. For the purposes of this graph, the “Hispanic or Latino” racial/ethnic group represents those who identify as having Hispanic/Latino ethnicity and may also be members of any racial group. All other racial categories on this graph represent those who identify with that racial category and do not identify with Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.

Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files As shown in Figure F-38, 100 percent of American Indian or Alaska Native applicants, 80 percent of Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander applicants, 63 percent of Asian American/API applicants, 58 percent of non-Hispanic white, and 50 percent of Black/African American applicants had their loans originated. Only 42 of Hispanic/Latino applicants had their loans originated. Black/African American and Hispanic/Latino applicants had the highest denial rates at 40 and 31 percent, respectively. 357
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-80 August/September 2024
Figure F-38
Mortgage Rates and Acceptance by Race (Malibu)

Source: Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's (FFIEC) Home Mortgage Disclosure Act loan/application register (LAR) files
Subsidized Housing
The Housing Authority of the County of Los Angeles (Housing Authority) serves in Los Angeles County, administering both the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Public Housing programs. The HCV provides assistance to rent-burdened residents and will continue to seek opportunities to increase rental assistance and reduce overpayment. The HCV program currently assists approximately 23,000 families through a partnership with over 13,000 property owners. The Public Housing program manages 3,229 units of public and other affordable housing throughout Los Angeles County.

According to the California Housing Partnership, there are no subsidized or public housing units within the City of Malibu. 40 There is no data available on the number of HCV recipients in the city.

Site Inventory
This section provides an analysis of how the site inventory impacts fair housing in the city.

The housing element must demonstrate that there are adequate sites zoned for the development of housing for households at each income level sufficient to accommodate the number of new housing units needed at each income level as identified in the RHNA. In the context of AFFH, the site identification requirement involves 40 California Housing Partnership. Affordable Housing Map and Benefits Calculator. https://affordablehomes.chpc.net/?view=34.033807,-
118.81921,12&rural=1,0&funding=hud,usda,lihtc,hcd,calhfa&selected=city,125, accessed August, 2023. 20% 7% 10% 13% 25%
56%
26%
40% 21%
31%
10%
100%
80%
63%
50% 58%
42%
23%
Application Approved but Not Accepted Application Denied Application Withdrawn by Applicant File Closed for Incompleteness Loan Originated
358
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-81 August/September 2024
not only an analysis of site capacity to accommodate the RHNA, but also whether the identified sites serve the purpose of replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity.

Housing Sites by TCAC Opportunity Areas
For purposes of evaluating fair housing, resource levels designated by TCAC/HCD denote access to economic and educational opportunities such as low-cost transportation, jobs, and high-quality schools and the quality of environmental factors in the area such as proximity to hazards and air quality. TCAC has a composite opportunity score for each census tract. The entire City of Malibu is within census tracts designated by TCAC as highest resource, indicating that each neighborhood of the city is associated with positive economic, educational, and health outcomes for low-income families – particularly long-term outcomes for children – when compared to other neighborhoods in the same region.

The City’s site inventory can accommodate 111 units on three sites. Figure F-39shows the housing opportunity sites by TCAC-designated resource area, all within highest resource areas. The “appropriateness” of sites for various affordability levels -- whether the sites could accommodate housing appropriate for low-, moderate-, or above moderateincome households -- is dictated by state housing element law and HCD guidance and includes allowable density, size of site, realistic capacity, existing use(s), and other factors.

More information about the sites and income designations is available in Appendix B, Residential Land Inventory.

A portion of the City’s RHNA will be satisfied by planned and approved projects. All planned and approved projects and housing opportunity sites are in areas designated as highest resource.

Total Units by Resource Area
All 111 proposed housing units identified in the site inventory are in highest resource areas:
32 percent of those units (36 units) will be lower-income units, 20 percent (22 units) will be moderate-income units, and 48 percent (53 units) will be above moderate-income units.

Due to the geographic constraints as discussed in detail in Chapter 7.4, Housing Constraints, the site inventory was limited in available opportunity sites for higher-density housing that could accommodate units for lower and moderate-income households. The AHO sites are the only sites in the city with sufficient area and zoning for higher-density housing, as well as proximity to transit and community amenities. As a result, all units proposed in the site inventory are limited to three neighboring AHO sites located within one census tract that is designated by TCAC as highest resource in Western Malibu. As discussed in Chapter 7.5, Housing Plan, the City will implement several programs to support affordable housing development and housing options throughout the city, such as Program 3.1. Facilitate Affordable Housing Development and Housing Assistance Opportunities, Program 3.2. Affordable Housing Development Incentives, and Program

4.1. Support Development of Accessory Dwelling Units. These programs will increase housing access and mobility for lower- and moderate-income households and reduce displacement risk for vulnerable residents. .
359
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-82 August/September 2024
Figure F-39
Location of Site Inventory in Relation to TCAC/HCD Opportunity Areas Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
360
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-83 August/September 2024
Sites by Income Population
Malibu does not contain areas with high levels of poverty relative to the region. Two census block groups in Western Malibu have a share of LMI households between 25 to 50 percent. The other census block groups in Malibu have a share of LMI households below 25 percent. All of the housing sites (84 percent of total units) are in the block groups with a share of LMI households between 25 to 50 percent. Figure F-40 shows the housing opportunity sites by percentage of LMI populations. LMI households in the city will benefit from the development of affordable units. The site inventory will improve the mixture of housing opportunities by income level in the city and will not exacerbate segregation by income. Program 5.2, Fair Housing Community Outreach will increase access to housing for lower income residents and provide housing mobility.

Sites by Overcrowded Households
Rates of overcrowding are less than five percent throughout Malibu (Figure F-41). The sites with units affordable to lower- and moderate-income households will provide opportunities for households that may otherwise need to rent smaller units or double with another household to afford the same opportunities.

Sites by Overpayment by Renters
In most of the city, between 40 to 60 percent of renter households overpay for housing costs, as shown in Figure F-42. Eastern Malibu has the highest percentage of renters overpaying on housing costs (60 to 80 percent), but due to the availability of opportunity sites, all sites included in the Site Inventory are located in Western Malibu where rates of overpayment are 47 percent. This area can accommodate a mix of income levels, including 36 units appropriate for lower-income households, 22 units appropriate for moderate-income households, and 53 units appropriate for above moderate-income households. Housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income households will likely be rental units. The site inventory will not exacerbate overpayment by renters but will add affordable housing opportunities in areas that need them. 361
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-84 August/September 2024
Figure F-40
Housing Opportunity Sites by Income Population (Western Malibu) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
362
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-85 August/September 2024
Figure F-41
Housing Opportunity Sites by Overcrowding (Western Malibu) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
363
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-86 August/September 2024
Figure F-42
Housing Opportunity Sites by Overpayment by Renters (Western Malibu) Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
364
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-87 August/September 2024
Sites by Areas of Integration and Segregation
Malibu does not have any areas designated by TCAC as high segregation and poverty, and there are no R/ECAPs in the city. The entire city is designated an RCAA. Compared to the region, Malibu has high levels of white segregation. The census tract that encompasses Central Malibu has a higher percentage of non-white residents (30 percent) than other portions of the city. Sites by areas of non-white population are shown in Figure F-43. Housing sites in Central Malibu can accommodate five units appropriate for above moderate-income households. The site inventory will not contribute to segregation based on race/ethnicity or income level within the city. Regionally, the site inventory will add affordable housing opportunities in an RCAA.

Regionally, Malibu has a low rate of residents with one or more disabilities. For persons with disabilities who live independently or with other family members, independent living can be supported with special housing features, financial support, and in-home supportive services. The location of housing is also an important factor for people with mobility restrictions who rely on public transportation for travel. The development of the AHO sites on Pacific Coast Highway will include units affordable to low- and moderateincome households located within a quarter mile of public transit. Development on these sites will create opportunities for residents with disabilities to live in Malibu.

Sites by Communities Vulnerable to Displacement
The City of Malibu has a lower displacement risk as determined by the UDP. All lowerincome and moderate-income housing sites proposed in the city are not in areas considered at risk of displacement, as seen in Figure F-44. Therefore, the site inventory will not increase segregation by risk of displacement.

Sites by CalEnviroScreen Score
Malibu has a low CalEnviroscreen score compared to the region. Figure F-45 shows the housing opportunity sites by CalEnviroScreen score. The site inventory would not concentrate lower-income sites in areas of higher pollution burden. The site inventory will add affordable housing opportunities in an area with better environmental outcomes. 365
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-88 August/September 2024
Figure F-43
Housing Opportunity Sites by Total Non-White Population Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
366
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-89 August/September 2024
Figure F-44
Housing Opportunity Sites by Displacement Risk
Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
367
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-90 August/September 2024
Figure F-45
Housing Opportunity Sites by CalEnviroScreen Percentile Score Source: AFFH Data Viewer, 2023
368
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-91 August/September 2024
Sites Analysis Summary Data
Table F-12 summarizes the site inventory by development priority area, sites, number of units by income level, and census tract characteristics.

Contributing Factors and Meaningful Actions
State law (AB 686) requires the identification and prioritization of contributing factors to fair housing issues based on all the previously required analysis. This identification and prioritization must give highest priority to factors that limit or deny fair housing choice or access to opportunity or negatively impact fair housing or civil rights. AB 686 also requires identification of metrics or quantified objectives and milestones for determining what fair housing results will be achieved. Meaningful actions must be taken in concert with each other and address the following:
• Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and in Access to Opportunity • Replacing Segregated Living Patterns with Truly Integrated and Balanced Living Patterns
• Transforming R/ECAP into Areas of Opportunity
• Fostering and Maintaining Compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Laws41 This section lists contributing factors that create, perpetuate, or increase the severity of one or more fair housing issues that were identified in community outreach and the analysis in this document. Table F-13 summarizes the identified fair housing issues, contributing factors to these issues, and meaningful actions the City will undertake to affirmatively further fair housing for special needs, racial/ethnic minority, and low-income residents.

Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
The following contributing factors to inadequate fair housing enforcement and outreach include:
• Lack of local fair housing outreach and enforcement
• Lack of resources for fair housing agencies and organizations to conduct more rigorous testing and audits, outreach, training, public education campaigns. • Lack of property owners/landlord education
Although Malibu is served by the Housing Rights Center, fair housing resources are limited to available funding. In order to meet the needs of residents of a large and diverse county, local fair housing agencies and organizations require greater levels of resourcing. 41 HCD. 2021. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing: Guidance for All Public Entities and for Housing Elements. April 2021 Update. https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf 369
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-92 August/September 2024
Table F-12 Site Inventory by Census Tract Characteristics Census Tract
Number
Number of
Existing
Households
Site Inventory Capacity (Units) AFFH Indicators
LowIncomeModerateIncome
Above
ModerateIncome
Percent
NonWhite
Percent
LMI
Residents
Median
Household
Income
TCAC
Opportunity
Area
Percent
Overpayment by
Renters
Percent
Overcrowded
Households
Displacement
Sensitivity
CalEnviroScreen
Percentile
Western Malibu
06037800411 1,069 36 22 53 16% 33% $243,125 Highest
Resource
47% 0% Lower
Displacement
Risk
2%
Total 36 22 53
Source: California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/California Housing and Community Development (HCD), Opportunity Maps (2023); U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 5-Year Data (2017-2021) 370
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-93 August/September 2024
The City works with the Southern California Housing Rights Center, which provides fair housing services countywide. However, the City does not provide fair housing information on the City’s website. A local public enforcement agency would have the potential to be more responsive to victims of discrimination.

State law protects against discrimination based on source of income. However, as noted in Appendix C, Public Participation Summary, public comments revealed that property owners and managers in Malibu routinely deny applications from voucher holders. Denial of housing vouchers impedes voucher holders from utilizing their assistance in areas of opportunity and indicates a greater need for outreach education to property owners and managers to enhance housing mobility. Information on housing rights and responsibilities, including source of income protection, should be disseminated to both landlords and residents, as well as mobility assistance and strategies for voucher holders.

As stated in Program 3.1: Facilitate Affordable Housing Development and Housing Assistance Opportunities, the City will work with LACDA and other local organizations that help to connect residents throughout LA County to housing choice vouchers and other affordable housing services in areas of opportunity.

Segregation and Integration
Contributing factors to segregation and integration patterns in Malibu include:
• Community opposition
• Lack of public investments
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• Lack of housing vouchers
Malibu has historically been segregated by income and race/ethnicity compared to the region. Although the City has completed rezoning efforts to allow multi-family development, higher-density housing development is limited by infrastructure constraints and geographic conditions, such as lack of ability to install a central wastewater system, steep slopes, and protected environmental habitats (see Chapter 7.3, Constraints).

Housing in Malibu is some of the costliest in the region and unaffordable to most households. Economic disparities have been exacerbated by the high cost of housing in recent years in Malibu and Los Angeles County. These disparities have been worsened by the lack of housing available for low- and moderate-income households and have resulted in significant segregation by race and ethnicity and income levels.

There is no regulated affordable housing in the City of Malibu and a very low number of units that accept housing vouchers. Additionally, the lack of transportation options and relative geographic isolation of Malibu have created barriers to lower-income, non-white residents from moving into the city.

As discussed in the analysis of the sites, the City will accommodate units affordable to low- and moderate-income households on three parcels on Pacific Coast Highway. As outlined in Program 2.1: Adequate Sites to Accommodate Regional Fair Share of Housing Growth, the City will encourage development of new affordable housing on these sites to ensure implementation of the RHNA for very low-, low-, and moderate-income 371
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-94 August/September 2024
residents. The City will also support the development of ADUs affordable to low- and moderate-income households through Program 4.1: Support Development of Accessory Dwelling Units. Additionally, the City will implement Program 3.1: Facilitate Affordable Housing Development and Housing Assistance Opportunities and Program 3.3: Housing for Persons with Special Needs to expand affordable housing to residents of all incomes, disability status, and race. Furthermore, the City will implement place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing, and protecting existing residents from displacement.

Significant Disparities in Housing Needs and Access to Opportunity The following contributing factors to disparities in access to opportunities in Malibu include:
• Location, type, and supply of affordable housing
• Land use and zoning laws
• Lack of supportive housing
• Lack of transportation options
Approximately eight percent of residents in Malibu have a disability, lower than several other areas of the region. The areas with the lowest access to transportation have the highest percentage of persons with a disability. The ability for persons with disabilities to reside in Malibu is limited by barriers to mobility, such as access to public transit and lack of supportive housing and services in the city.

There are limited resources for lower-income households in the city, for reasons previously discussed. These limiting factors have contributed to disparities in opportunity for lowerincome households to reside in the city. For residents already residing in Malibu, those who rent are often impacted by housing cost burden.

Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues
This assessment of fair housing issues identifies factors that contribute to fair housing issues in Malibu, identified in Table F-13. The meaningful actions are incorporated into programs and actions in Chapter 7.5, Housing Plan. Based on community feedback and data analysis, it was determined that high-priority issues in the city are lack of affordable housing, fair housing enforcement and outreach, and segregation of low-income residents. Housing mobility and rehabilitation programs collectively have a metric of assisting 55 households during the planning period. Housing mobility and rehabilitation programs collectively have a metric of assisting 55 households during the planning period. These programs are Program 1.3 Housing Rehabilitation Assistance, 3.1 Facilitation of Affordable Housing Assistance (specifically actions 3.1.c and 3.1.d), Program 3.3.

Housing for Persons with Special Needs, 4.1 Support Development of Accessory Dwelling Units (specifically action 4.1.f), and 5.2 Fair Housing Community Outreach. See quantified objectives in Table 7.5-1 in Chapter 7.5 Housing Plan.
372
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-95 August/September 2024
Table F-13 Meaningful Actions to Address Fair Housing Issues Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Fair housing
enforcement and
outreach
• Lack of local fair housing
outreach and
enforcement (Moderate
Priority)
• Lack of resources for fair
housing agencies and
organizations to conduct
more rigorous testing and
audits, outreach, training,
public education
campaigns (High Priority)
Promote the services of HRC to provide fair housing and tenant/landlord services, including fair housing counseling and education and tenant/landlord counseling, mediation, and testing. Advertise available fair housing services. (Program 5.1.a)
At least once annually starting in 2025,
provide information on fair housing services
available to Malibu residents and property
owners via the City’s social media, flyers at
the planning counter and at community
locations, and/or posting in the local
newspaper. When possible, provide
information in English and Spanish.

Provide informative materials on fair housing resources with ADU applications. (Program 5.1.b)
Provide materials with ADU applications by
December 2025.

Provide information and referral services that direct families and individuals to financial resources for housing rental or purchase, locating suitable housing in areas of opportunity, and obtaining housing with special needs facilities such as disabled-accessible units to enhance housing choices and mobility. Create a Housing Resources page on the City’s website to disseminate informational materials to residents on affordable housing and financial resources including links to the HCV and Home Ownership Program resources through Los Angeles County Development Authority, Mortgage Credit Certificate through the Golden State Finance Authority, and the California Homeownership Downpayment Assistance Program through the California Housing Finance Agency.. (Program

5.2.b)
Create webpage by January 2025
Lack of housing
affordable to lowerand moderateincome and special
needs households
• Community Opposition
• Location, type, and
supply of affordable
housing
• Land use and zoning
laws
• Lack of housing vouchers
Proactively promote affordable housing development on AHO sites. Prioritize contacting qualified housing developers to identify affordable housing development opportunities that serve the needs of special needs populations, including seniors, homeless, female-headed households, large families, lowincome, and/or persons with disabilities. (Program 3.1.a) Coordinate with potential developers at least
once annually to provide information on
density bonus, potential funding sources,
and available incentives. Support the
development of 47 lower-income units and
17 moderate-income units.

Identify funding available through LACDA, HCD, and HUD and have a list of options available for interested developers and homeowners and post the list on the City’s website by July 2025. Potential funding programs may include singleand multi-family affordable housing rehabilitation programs and homeownership programs administered by the California Housing Financing Agency (CHFA). (Program 3.1.c)
Identify at least three different types of
funding and post on the City’s website by
July 2025 and monitor funding on an
ongoing basis.
373
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-96 August/September 2024
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Promote the Housing Choice Voucher program to landlords (including ADU owners) and residents with the goal of increasing the number of vouchers used. (Program 3.1.d)
Establish a list of property owners and
managers of multi-family units and ADUs
and mail information about the Housing
Choice Voucher program and state fair
housing law regarding discrimination based
on source of income by December 2025 and
again by December 2027.

Subject to funding availability, provide development subsidy for affordable housing units with an effort to locate such housing near transit and essential services. (Program 3.2.a)
Annually, through the budgetary process,
allocate available funding to support
affordable housing development.

Prioritize AHTF assistance to developers for affordable housing projects that provide units that serve the needs of at least one special needs group by creating scoring criteria that encourage the inclusion of units and services needed to support individuals with special needs. (Program 3.3.a) Subject to the availability of funds, support at
least five affordable housing units during the
planning period.

Support services that meet the needs of City residents, especially extremely low-income households and special housing needs populations, that support mobility options and housing choices. (Program 3.3.b)
Allocate $127,500 in FY 2023-24 to the
Ventura Transit Systems for Dial-A-Ride
services to seniors (60 years and older) and
disabled residents. Annually consider
allocations and continue the service
throughout the planning period as funding
allows.

Organize a senior resource fair at least once
annually that promotes housing and
transportation services available to seniors,
including the Dial-A-Ride service.

Provide informational lectures on housing
resources at the Senior Center including the
application process and funding options for
assisted living.

Promote shared housing programs such as
Affordable Living for the Aging (ALA), which
connects senior homeowners with
housemates seeking discounted rent in
exchange for providing support to senior
homeowners. Post information on shared
housing programs on the City’s website by
June 2025 and invite the ALA and/or similar
374
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-97 August/September 2024
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline organizations to attend the City’s senior
resource fair as a vendor.

Provide services throughout the planning
period. Post information on shared housing
programs on the City’s website by June
2025.

Inform housing developers about the City’s density bonus program during pre‐ development conferences, inquiries, and with applications and emphasize development potential. (Program 3.4.b)
Communicate with at least two different
affordable housing developers annually
informing them about the City’s density
bonus program.

Provide technical assistance to developers on how to use the Density Bonus incentives. (Program 3.4.c)
Maintain current information on the City’s
website. Refresh annually. Publish an
informational bulletin for developers on the
City’s density bonus program by June 2025.

Review annually and edit to include new
information as necessary.

Pursue mechanisms to facilitate the construction of at least 28 ADUs by the end of the planning period, including but not limited to:
• Create pre-approved standards for ADU foundation plans or prefabricated plans.
• Refer property owners to programs that assist lower and moderate-income homeowners in constructing ADUs.
• Expand or extend fee waivers for ADUs beyond state law. (Program 4.1.a) Apply for funding to create pre-approved
plans by June 2024. Publish pre-approved
plans for ADUs by December 2025.

Review ADU trends and commit to adjustments if the City is not on track to meet target development. If the City is not meeting ADU goals, implement additional action(s) depending on the severity of the gap, including increased public outreach efforts to increase ADU development. (Program 4.1.b) Review ADU trends every two years starting
in 2023 and implement additional incentives
and public outreach within one year of
review, and if necessary, pursue other
strategies to meet the RHNA, including
rezone of sites..

Publish resources on City’s website on building ADUs and JADUs. (Program

4.1.c) Publish material on the City’s website by
January 2025.

Create an ADU Amnesty Program that allows property owners who have unpermitted ADUs on their property to bring them up to code and get them permitted without facing any penalties or fines. (Program 4.1.d) Adopt an ADU Amnesty Program Ordinance
by 2028.
375
City of Malibu 2021-2029 Housing Element Appendix F
F-98 August/September 2024
Identified Fair
Housing Issue Contributing Factors Meaningful Actions Metrics and Timeline Allow up to two JADUs on single-family lots. (Program 4.1.f) Update the ADU ordinance in MMC within six months of receipt of comments from HCD
or within six months from adoption of this
Housing Element, whichever comes later
and transmit adopted LCP amendments to
the California Coastal Commission within
one month of adoption
Require the project developers of affordable housing projects or projects with affordable units to implement an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan to outreach to a diverse population, extending outreach to nearby communities in Los Angeles County and Ventura County, especially to workers in the city who do not live in the city. These affirmative marketing materials will include contact information for housing service providers (such as the home share programs) and non-profit housing organizations that serve lower-income tenants in the surrounding region. (Program 5.2.a)
By January 2025, require implementation of
an Affirmative Fair Marketing Plan.

Enter into a contract with HRC or other fair housing service providers to host an annual fair housing workshop to educate residents and landlords on fair housing laws, HCVs and housing rights and resources. (Program 5.1.c) Once annually starting in 2025, partner with
HRC to host a fair housing workshop.

In collaboration with the Housing Authority, provide education to property owners and managers to expand awareness of the HCV program to increase acceptance of tenant-based HCVs and to facilitate mobility and provide choices for lower-income households throughout the city. Identify and address challenges that property owners/managers have with existing or prospective HCV holders. (Program 5.1.d)
Starting in 2025, annually conduct one
workshop for landlords on the HCV program,
for a total of seven workshops during the
planning period, targeting property
owners/managers in eastern Malibu.

Subject to available funding, offer grants of up to $10,000 per applicant from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to construct ADUs that are rent-restricted to lower income households (using County AMI thresholds (Program 5.2.c) By January 2025, implement grant program
for rent-restricted ADUs. By June 2025,
promote the grant opportunity on the City’s
website and provide one grant by the end of
the planning period.
376
Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 24-49

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

DETERMINING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) LAND USE
PLAN (LUP) POLICY 6.7 (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 24-001) AS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE GOALS, POLICIES,
PROGRAMS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE 2021-2029 GENERAL PLAN

HOUSING ELEMENT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Malibu that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6th planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 planning period.

B. The 2021-2029 Housing Element establishes goals, policies, programs, and objectives that address the provision of adequate, safe, and decent housing for all economic segments of the community.

C. On June 23, 2021, the City of Malibu conducted a public workshop to review Housing Element requirements and issues.

D. On July 22, 2021, the Malibu Planning Commission conducted a study session to review the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

E. On August 23, 2021, the Malibu City Council conducted a public workshop to review the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

F. On August 24, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was transmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review as required by state law.

G. On October 22, 2021, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

H. On November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the revised draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and adopted Resolution No. 21-77 recommending adoption to the City Council. Public notice of the hearing was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media. 377
Resolution No 24-49

______________________
I. On January 10, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and adopted Resolution No. 22-67 adopting the Revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

J. On January 21, 2022, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to the HCD for review as required by state law.

K. On March 22, 2022, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

L. On May 19, 2023, the City of Malibu received a "Failure to Adopt Compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element - Letter of Inquiry" from HCD.

M. On June 7, 2023, the City of Malibu issued a letter to HCD in response to the May 19, 2023 letter which provided a timeline for the City's adoption of an updated 2021-2029 Housing Element.

N. On July 20, 2023, the City of Malibu received a second "Failure to Adopt Compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element - Letter of Inquiry."
O. On September 23, 2023, the City entered into an agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assist the City in addressing HCD’s comments to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update when the previous consultant due to workload and planned retirement terminated his agreement with the City.

P. On January 17, 2024, the City Council held a study session to review the Housing Element requirements including needed code amendments.

Q. On February 7, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

R. On March 22, 2024, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

S. On April 22, 2024, the City entered into a stipulated judgment with HCD with deadlines to approve the 2021-2029 Housing Element and hold first readings on the MMC and LCP amendments; by September 23, 2024.

T. The stipulated judgment further provided that prior to second reading of the MMC and LCP amendments, the adopted Housing Element and code amendments must be submitted to HCD by October 4, 2024; on October 14, 2024, the City Council must conduct the second reading of, and adopt, 378
Resolution No 24-49

______________________
the MMC and LCP amendments; and by October 18, 2024 the City must submit the code amendments to HCD along with evidence that any required LCP amendments were transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and certification.

U. On April 29, 2024, the City posted the revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element on the City website for a 7-day public review.

V. On May 7, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

W. On June 21, 2024, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

X. On July 19, 2024, the City posted the revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for a 7-day public review.

Y. On July 25, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Documents was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to all interested parties, regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

Z. On July 29, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

AA. On July 31, 2024, the City received a letter from HCD finding the revised draft housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.).

The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law when any necessary rezoning is complete and the element is re-adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585. No rezoning is required as part of the revised Housing Element.

BB. On August 19, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan amendment and reviewed and considered the comments of the HCD, the draft Housing Element as revised to address HCD comments, and corollary code amendments to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) as required to implement the goals, objectives, policies and implementation programs as set forth in the Housing Element. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record, and adopted Resolution No. 24-59 recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 20-001 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element; adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 20-001 to amend the LCP LUP; and adopting Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 24-002 to amend Title 17 of the Malibu Municipal Code. 379
Resolution No 24-49

______________________
CC. On August 29, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing of the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to all interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

DD. On September 23, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan amendment, and reviewed and considered the comments of the HCD, the draft Housing Element as revised to address HCD comments, and corollary amendments to the LCP LUP and MMC as required to implement the goals, objectives, policies and implementation programs as set forth in the Housing Element. The City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council hereby finds as follows:

A. The City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) amendment implements the goals, policies, programs, and objectives of the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, and is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states the commonsense rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The LUP amendment to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any development project and does not propose any standards, regulations, procedures, or application requirements that would substantially change any land use or portend new development that was not already anticipated in the City’s previous Housing Element. It can therefore be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the LUP amendment would have a significant effect on the environment.

B. In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCP amendment. This application is for an amendment to the LCP LUP, which must be certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) before it takes effect. The LCP Section 1.3.1 states that the provisions of the LCP take precedence over any conflict between the LCP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In order to prevent inconsistency between the LCP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, if the LCP LUP amendment is approved, the City must also approve the corollary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. This amendment is necessary for the preparation and adoption of the LCPA and because it is entirely dependent on, related to, and duplicative of the exempt activity, it is subject to the same CEQA exemption.

C. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State of California Fish and Game Code.

D. The proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of the Malibu General Plan, MMC, LCP, and all other applicable programs.

SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment Findings. 380
Resolution No 24-49

______________________
Pursuant to LIP Section 19.6 Required Findings, before approval of any LCP amendment, the City Council must make the finding that such amendment meets the requirements of and is in conformity with the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The City Council, based on evidence in the whole record, finds that the LUP amendment is in conformity with the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as follows and hereby amends the LUP as set forth in SECTION 4:

A. The requirements and standards in the amendment for various housing types ensure that development of affordable housing may occur in compliance with State housing element law, consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies to accommodate housing for all economic segments of the community (California Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) Section 30604(f); and LIP Sections

3.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING and 3.4.5 Affordable Housing Overlay District), while supporting overarching policies in the LCP and Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act for protection of coastal resources, public access, public recreation, and public viewsheds (Coastal Act Policies 30231, 30211, 30252). The amendment does not require re-zoning and only identify regulations and standards for housing on properties for which development is currently allowed.

SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan Amendment.

Policy 6.7 of the LCP LUP shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

6.7 The height of structures shall be limited to minimize impacts to visual resources. The maximum allowable height, except for beachfront lots, shall be 18 feet above existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. On beachfront lots, or where found appropriate through Site Plan Review, the maximum height shall be 24 feet (flat roofs) or 28 feet (pitched roofs) above existing or finished grade, whichever is lower. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to accommodate an affordable housing project, the maximum allowable height in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone is 30 feet. Chimneys and rooftop antennas may be permitted to extend above the permitted height of the structure.

SECTION 5. Submittal to the California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs the City Manager or his designee to submit an application and all necessary materials to the California Coastal Commission to certify an amendment to the City of Malibu LCP LUP related to the implementation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

SECTION 6.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 23rd day of September 2024.

381
Resolution No 24-49

______________________
_____________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
382
ORDINANCE NO. 523

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROPOSED

CODE AMENDMENTS ARE EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM (LCP) LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LIP) (LCPA NO. 24-001) SPECIFICALLY LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SECTIONS 2.1, 3.3,

3.4.5, 3.6, 3.7, 3.11, 3.14, 6.7, 13.30, AND APPENDIX 1 TABLE B, AND COROLLARY AMENDMENTS TO MALIBU MUNICIPAL CODE (MMC) TITLE 17 ZONING SPECIFICALLY SECTIONS 17.02.060, 17.08, 17.10.020, 17.12.020, 17.12.040,

17.14.020, 17.14.040, 17.24.020, 17.30.020, 17.30.030, 17.34.020, 17.34.030, 17.39.020,

17.40.040, 17.40.120, 17.41.1, 17.42.020, 17.48.030, CHAPTER 17.63, AND APPENDIX 1 (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 24-002), AN AMENDMENT TO

THE LIP AND MMC TO MODIFY STANDARDS, REGULATIONS, PROCEDURES

AND APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO HOUSING PROJECTS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY’S 2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. The State of California requires every municipality to periodically update the Housing Element of its General Plan to review the housing needs of the community and revise its policies, programs and objectives to address those needs. Jurisdictions such as the City of Malibu that are within the Southern California Association of Governments region are required to update their Housing Elements for the 6th planning cycle, which covers the 2021-2029 planning period.

B. The 2021-2029 Housing Element establishes goals, policies, programs, and objectives that address the provision of adequate, safe, and decent housing for all economic segments of the community.

C. On June 23, 2021, the City of Malibu conducted a public workshop to review Housing Element requirements and issues.

D. On July 22, 2021, the Malibu Planning Commission conducted a study session to review the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

E. On August 23, 2021, the Malibu City Council conducted a public workshop to review the draft 2021-2029 Housing Element. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

F. On August 24, 2021, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element was transmitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review as required by state law.
383
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
G. On October 22, 2021, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

H. On November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the revised draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and adopted Resolution No. 21-77 recommending adoption to the City Council. Public notice of the hearing was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

I. On January 10, 2022, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan Amendment and adopted Resolution No. 22-67 adopting the Revised Draft 2021- 2029 Housing Element Update. Public notice of the workshop was provided to interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

J. On January 21, 2022, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to the HCD for review as required by state law.

K. On March 22, 2022, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

L. On May 19, 2023, the City of Malibu received a "Failure to Adopt Compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element - Letter of Inquiry" from HCD.

M. On June 7, 2023, the City of Malibu issued a letter to HCD in response to the May 19, 2023 letter which provided a timeline for the City's adoption of an updated 2021-2029 Housing Element.

N. On July 20, 2023, the City of Malibu received a second "Failure to Adopt Compliant 6th Cycle Housing Element - Letter of Inquiry."
O. On September 23, 2023, the City entered into an agreement with Rincon Consultants, Inc. to assist the City in addressing HCD’s comments to the 6th Cycle Housing Element Update when the previous consultant due to workload and planned retirement terminated his agreement with the City.

P. On January 17, 2024, the City Council held a study session to review the Housing Element requirements including needed code amendments.

Q. On February 7, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

R. On March 22, 2024, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law. 384
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
S. On April 22, 2024, the City entered into a stipulated judgment with HCD with deadlines to approve the 2021-2029 Housing Element and related code amendments by September 23, 2024.

T. The stipulated judgment further provided that prior to second reading of the MMC and LCP amendments, the adopted Housing Element and code amendments must be submitted to HCD by October 4, 2024; on October 14, 2024, the City Council must conduct the second reading of, and adopt, the MMC and LCP amendments; and by October 18, 2024 the City must submit the code amendments to HCD along with evidence that any required LCP amendments were transmitted to the California Coastal Commission for its review and certification.

U. On April 29, 2024, the City posted the revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element on the City website for a 7-day public review.

V. On May 7, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

W. On June 21, 2024, HCD issued a letter finding that the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element meets many statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law, however, revisions are necessary to comply with State Housing Element Law.

X. On July 19, 2024, the City posted the revised Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element for a 7-day public review.

Y. On July 25, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of Local Coastal Program (LCP) Documents was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to all interested parties, regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

Z. On July 29, 2024, the Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element amendment was transmitted to HCD for review as required by state law.

AA. On July 31, 2024, the City received a letter from HCD finding the revised draft housing element meets the statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65580 et seq.). The housing element will comply with State Housing Element Law when any necessary rezoning is complete and the element is re-adopted, submitted to, and approved by HCD, in accordance with Government Code section 65585. No rezoning is required as part of the revised Housing Element.

BB. On August 19, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan amendment and reviewed and considered the comments of the HCD, the draft Housing Element as revised to address HCD comments, and corollary code amendments to the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and Malibu 385
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
Municipal Code (MMC) as required to implement the goals, objectives, policies and implementation programs as set forth in the Housing Element. The Planning Commission reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record, and adopted Resolution No. 24-59 recommending that the City Council adopt General Plan Amendment No. 20-001 adopting the 2021-2029 Housing Element; adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 20-001 to amend the LCP LIP; and adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 24-002 to amend Title 17 of the Malibu Municipal Code.

CC. On August 29, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing of the City Council was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to all interested parties; regional, state and federal agencies; and local libraries and media.

DD. On September 23, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the General Plan amendment, and reviewed and considered the comments of the HCD, the draft Housing Element as revised to address HCD comments, and corollary amendments to the LCP LIP and MMC as required to implement the goals, objectives, policies and implementation programs as set forth in the Housing Element. The City Council reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council hereby finds as follows:

A. The LCP LIP amendments and MMC amendments implement the goals, policies, programs, and objectives of the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, and are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states the commonsense rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. The LIP and MMC amendments to implement the 2021-2029 Housing Element would not approve any development project and do not propose any standards, regulations, procedures, or application requirements that would substantially change any land use or portend new development that was not already anticipated in the City’s previous Housing Element. It can therefore be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of the LIP and MMC amendments would have a significant effect on the environment.

B. In addition, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCP amendment. This application is for an amendment to the LCP, which must be certified by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) before it takes effect. The LCP Section 1.3.1 states that the provisions of the LCP take precedence over any conflict between the LCP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. In order to prevent inconsistency between the LCP and the City’s Zoning Ordinance, if the LCP amendments are approved, the City must also approve the corollary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. These amendments are necessary for the preparation and adoption of the LCPA and because they are entirely dependent on, related to, and duplicative of the exempt activity, they are subject to the same CEQA exemption.
386
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
C. The project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the State of California Fish and Game Code.

D. The proposed amendments are consistent with the provisions of the Malibu General Plan, MMC, LCP, and all other applicable programs.

SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Pursuant to LIP Section 19.6 Required Findings, before approval of any LCP amendment, the City Council must make the finding that such amendment meets the requirements of and is in conformity with the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The City Council, based on evidence in the whole record, finds that the LIP amendments are in conformity with the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act as follows and hereby amends the LIP as set forth in Exhibit A:

A. The requirements and standards in the amendments for various housing types ensure that development of affordable housing may occur in compliance with State housing element law, consistent with LCP and Coastal Act policies to accommodate housing for all economic segments of the community, as well as those individuals with special needs, (California Public Resources Code (Coastal Act) Section 30604(f); and LIP Sections 3.7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 3.4.5 Affordable Housing Overlay District, and 13.30 HOUSING ACCESSIBIITY – REQUEST FOR REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION), while supporting overarching policies in the LCP and Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act for protection of coastal resources, public access, public recreation, and public viewsheds (Coastal Act Policies 30231, 30211, 30252). The amendments do not require re-zoning and only identify regulations and standards for housing on properties for which development is currently allowed.

SECTION 4. Zoning Text Amendment and Findings.

Section 17.74.040(C) of MMC Title 17 Zoning states that before approval of any zoning text amendment, the City Council must make the finding that such amendment is consistent with the general plan as adopted. The City Council, based on evidence in the whole record, makes the finding as follows and hereby amends the MMC Title 17 Zoning as set forth in Exhibit B:

A. The proposed amendments implement the goals, policies, programs, and objectives of the City of Malibu Housing Element 2021-2029, which is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Malibu General Plan and all its elements, including General Plan LU Objective 1.1: Development that does not degrade the environment, LUP Policy 1.1.1: The City shall protect the natural environment by regulating design and permitting only land uses compatible with the natural environment, and LUP Policy 1.14: The City shall preserve the City’s rural residential character, as the amendments do not require re-zoning and only identify regulations and standards for housing on properties for which development is currently allowed. 387
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
SECTION 5. Submittal to the California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs the City Manager or his designee to submit an application and all necessary materials to the California Coastal Commission to certify amendments to the City of Malibu LCP LIP related to the implementation of the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

SECTION 6. Effective Date.

The Local Coastal Program Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment approved in this Ordinance shall become effective after certification by the California Coastal Commission of the Local Coastal Program Amendment.

SECTION 7. Severability.

If any section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be illegal or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall be severable, and shall not affect or impair any remaining section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word included within this Ordinance, it being the intent of the City that the remainder of the Ordinance shall be and shall remain in full force and effect, valid, and enforceable.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September 2024. __________________________________
DOUG STEWART, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
388
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
Exhibit A
The City of Malibu Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) is amended as follows:

A. The following definitions shall be added to Section 2.1:

BY-RIGHT USE – means that the City’s review of the use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.

COORDINATED ENTRY SYSTEM - a centralized or coordinated assessment system developed pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as specified in Government Code Section 65662, and any related requirements, designed to coordinate program participant intake, assessment, and referrals.

LOW BARRIER NAVIGATION CENTER – is a Housing First, low barrier, serviceenriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. “Low barrier” includes best practices to reduce barriers to entry, such as allowing partners, pets, storage of personal items, and privacy (as provided in Government Code §65660(a), as the same may be amended from time to time).

PERMANENT SUPPPORTIVE HOUSING – means the same as “SUPPORTIVE HOUSING.”
B. The following definitions in Section 2.1 shall be replaced in their entirety as follows:

EMERGENCY SHELTER – housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons, which is limited to occupancy of 6 months or less by a homeless. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLDS – means those households earning less than 80 percent of the Los Angeles County median income, and includes very-low-income households, as defined in California Health and Safety Code §50105, and extremely lowincome households, as defined in Section 50106 of the California Health and Safety Code, as the same may be amended from time to time.

RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY, SMALL - a family home, group care facility, or similar facility for six or less persons that is maintained and operated to provide 24-hour nonmedical residential care for seven or more adults, children, or adults and children in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or the protection of the individual. This use includes the administration of 389
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
limited medical assistance. The residential care facility, small may include such a facility licensed by the State of California.

SUPPORTIVE HOUSING – a building or buildings configured as rental housing development with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by a “target population,” and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing is a residential use subject only to the same regulations and procedures that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. (Also referred to as, “PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING”).

C. Section 3.3(Q)(2)(a) shall be modified to add new subparts v. and vi., as follows:
v. Transitional housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses. vi. Supportive housing permitted in the same manner as single-family residences and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

D. Table 1 of Section 3.4.5(B) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

Table 1 – AHO District Sites
Site Number APNs Address
1 4467-013-022 and
4467-013-023
28517 Pacific Coast Highway and adjacent
vacant lot
2 4467-012-005 28401 Pacific Coast Highway
3 4458-022-908 A 2.3 acre portion of 23465 Civic Center Way (La Paz Site and formerly known as
3700 La Paz Lane)
E. Section 3.4.5(D) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

D. Standards. The Residential Development Standards contained in Section 3.6 of the Malibu LIP, as well as all other applicable LCP provisions, shall apply, unless specifically modified by standards detailed in this Section (3.4.5). The following special specific regulations shall apply to the AHO sites identified in Table 1 above.

1. Density. Affordable housing developments in the AHO shall:
a. Have a minimum density of twenty (20) units per net acre. 390
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
b. Have a maximum density of one dwelling unit per 1,613 square feet of lot area exclusive of any additional density bonus pursuant to Section 3.7.1 of the Malibu LIP.
c. Have a minimum of sixteen (16) dwelling units.
d. For Sites 1 and 2, a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of all units shall be deed restricted ("restricted units") as lower-income multi-family dwelling units. For Site 3, eighty percent (80%) of the units within an affordable housing development, exclusive of a manager's unit(s), shall be affordable to lower and moderate income households as set forth in Subsection E below, and a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the affordable units shall be deed restricted (“restricted units”) as very-low or low-income multi-family dwelling units.

2. Development.
a. Structures may be constructed on slopes flatter than 1½:1. b. The Residential Development Standards contained in Section 3.6 of the LIP, as well as all other applicable LCP provisions, shall apply to affordable housing developments, unless specifically modified by standards detailed in this section

3.4.5. c. Structures may exceed two stories in height but shall not exceed 30 feet in height.

3. Restricted Units. The restricted multi-family dwelling units required under this Section:
a. May either be rental or for-sale dwellings;
b. Shall have the same exterior appearance and quality of construction as that of market-rate units in the same housing development project; c. Shall have the same amenities as the market-rate units in the same housing development project, including the same access to and enjoyment of common open space, landscaping, parking, storage, and other facilities in the development;
d. The unit mix based on bedroom count shall be proportional to the unit mix based on bedroom count provided for the market-rate units in the same housing development project;
e. May be comprised of up to thirty-three percent (33%) less square footage than market rate units of the same bedroom count;
391
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
f. Shall be dispersed throughout the affordable housing development on each floor and section of the building(s) and throughout the site such that:
i. No more than fifty (50) percent of the proposed restricted units are consolidated into one structure in developments with more than one multiunit structure; and ii. No more than twenty (20) percent of the proposed restricted units in a single multi-unit structure are located adjacent to each other or stacked on consecutive floors unless it is unavoidable due to the required unit mix and distribution; and
g. Shall be made available for occupancy concurrently with the market-rate units of the affordable housing development as follows:
i. In ownership projects, the City may not issue building permits for more than fifty (50) percent of the market-rate units until it has issued building permits for all of the restricted units, and the City may not approve any final inspections or certificates of occupancy for more than seventy-five (75) percent of the market-rate units until it has issued final inspections or certificates of occupancy for all of the restricted units. ii. In rental projects, the City may not issue building permits for more than fifty (50) percent of the market-rate buildings until it has issued building permits for all buildings containing restricted units, and the City may not approve any final inspections or certificates of occupancy for more than seventy-five (75) percent of the market-rate buildings until it has issued final inspections or certificates of occupancy for all of the buildings containing restricted units.
iii. In the event the City approves a phased project, the restricted units shall be provided proportionally within each phase of the affordable housing development.

F. Section 3.4.5(E) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

E. Affordability.

1. Rental Units. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for an affordable housing development in the AHO, the property owner shall enter into with the City and record an Affordable Housing Agreement per Section 3.7.1(D)(4) of the Malibu LIP for a period of not less than fifty-five (55) years that includes the provisions and terms for meeting the requirements of this Section.
392
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

2. For-Sale or Owner-Occupied Units. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for an affordable housing development in the AHO, the property owner shall enter into and record in the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder a covenant in a form approved by the City restricting future sale prices to affordable levels according to Section 3.4.5(D)(1)(d) and including procedures for verifying and maintaining compliance with income eligibility requirements for a period of not less than fiftyfive (55) years.

3. Housing Plan. An application for approval of an affordable housing development shall include an Affordable Housing Plan describing how the development will comply with the provisions of this Section. No application for approval of an affordable housing development shall be deemed complete unless the Affordable Housing Plan is in conformance with this Section. An Affordable Housing Plan shall include a written description and project plans indicating each of the following:
a. The number of restricted units proposed.
b. The unit square footage and number of bedrooms for market-rate and restricted units and whether they are ownership or rental units.
c. The proposed location of the restricted units.
d. Amenities and services provided for the unit residents. e. Specific level of affordability for each of the restricted units. f. Schedule for production of the restricted and market-rate units.

G. Section 3.4.5(F) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

F. Replacement Housing. The following requirements shall apply to Sites 1 and 2.

1. A new affordable housing development on a site where affordable dwelling units exist and are proposed for demolition, or previously existed within five years prior to the property owner’s application for a new affordable housing development, shall replace such units (“replacement units”) with those affordable to the same or lower category of income level if, within five years prior to the property owner’s application for a new affordable housing development, the affordable units were:
a. Subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low- or very-low-income; b. Subject to any other form of rent or price control; or 393
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
c. Occupied by low- or very-low-income households.

2. The replacement units shall be provided in addition to the requirements for providing restricted units pursuant to this Section.

3. The replacement units shall be provided on at least a one-for-one basis for those affordable units removed.

4. The replacement units shall have at least the same number of bedrooms as the affordable units removed.

5. Affordable dwelling units that make a project eligible under state density bonus law may be counted towards the replacement units.

6. The replacement units shall be available for occupancy at the same time as the new affordable housing development, or at least three years from the date the affordable units were demolished as a result of the new affordable housing development, whichever is sooner. The city may require the posting of a bond and/or the recordation of a covenant against the site of the new affordable housing development to ensure compliance.

7. The replacement units shall comply with the provisions of Section 3.4.5(D)(1), Section 3.4.5(D)(2), and Section 3.4.5(E).

8. An application for a new affordable housing development where replacement units are required shall specify the following:
a. Number of affordable dwelling units demolished or proposed to be demolished, including number of bedrooms and size in square feet;
b. Documentation of the current rents and income of all replacement tenants, and any tenants evicted in the prior 12 months, for existing affordable units; c. Documentation of the rents and income of all prior tenants of affordable units that were demolished prior to the application for a new affordable housing development, as feasibly available.
d. Number of replacement units proposed;
e. Unit square footage and number of bedrooms of the replacement units; f. Proposed location of the replacement units;
g. Amenities and services provided for the replacement unit residents; and 394
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
h. Specific level of affordability for each of the replacement units.

H. Section 3.4.5 shall be modified to add new subparts (G) and (H) as follows:

G. Review and Approval.

1. Affordable housing on Sites 1 and 2 that qualifies under, and is consistent with the provisions of, this Section and that provides at least 20 percent of the total dwelling units to households qualifying as lower-income, shall be approved by the city as a by-right use.

2. Subdivisions of land associated with affordable housing projects on Sites 1 and 2 that are consistent with LIP Chapter 15 shall be approved by-right.

3. Review and approval of affordable housing on Site 3 shall be as set forth in LIP Chapter 13.

H. Administration and Monitoring.

1. The city council, by resolution, may establish fees for the ongoing administration and monitoring of the restricted units, which fees may be updated periodically, as required.

2. The city council, by resolution, may adopt procedures for implementing this Section, including documents that establish standards for determining household income, restricted unit housing cost, provisions for continued monitoring of tenant eligibility, and other eligibility criteria.

I. Section 3.6(E) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

E. Height.

1. Non-beachfront lots. Except as provided for projects in the affordable housing overlay district pursuant to Section 3.4.5(D)(2)(c), every residence and every other building or structure associated with residential development, including satellite dish antenna, shall not be higher than 18 feet above natural or finished grade, including rooftop, parapet and deck walls and railings, whichever results in a lower building height, except for chimneys and rooftop antenna other than satellite dish antenna.

2. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the Manager may issue a development permit, pursuant to Section 13.27 of the Malibu LIP (Site Plan Review), to allow heights up to 24 feet for flat roofs and 28 feet for pitched or sloped roofs. In no event shall the maximum number of stories above grade be greater than two, except as provided for projects in the affordable housing overlay district pursuant to Section 3.4.5(D)(2)(c).
395
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

3. Beachfront lots. Except as provided for projects in the affordable housing overlay district pursuant to Section 3.4.5(D)(2)(c), for new construction on a beachfront lot, no residence or structure, including satellite dish antenna, shall exceed 24 feet for flat roof including solid rooftop, parapet and deck walls, and 28 feet for pitched roof, as measured from the lowest recommended finish floor elevation on the ocean side, as defined by a licensed Civil Engineer, based upon a Comprehensive Wave Action Report, and 24 feet for a flat roof and 28 feet for pitched roof as measured from center line of the road on the land side.

Building height shall be apportioned such that the portion of the building which height is measured from the centerline of the road shall not exceed half of the total length (front to rear) of the structure. Open railings for rooftop decks on structures with a flat roof may extend 25 feet in height.

For an addition to an existing structure, the height shall be measured from the bottom of the first floor diaphragm on the ocean side, or the lowest recommended finish floor elevation, whichever is lower, and the center line of the road on the land side.

J. Section 3.6(I)(2) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

2. Multi-family. 25% of the lot area (excluding slopes equal to or greater than 1:1 and street easements) shall be devoted to landscaping. “Green or living walls” shall not be considered landscaping for the purpose of this paragraph. The required 5 foot landscape buffer around the perimeter of parking areas pursuant to Section 3.12.5(E)(1) of the Malibu LIP shall count toward the 25% requirement. An additional 5% of the lot area (excluding slopes equal to or greater than 1:1 and street easements) shall be devoted to permeable surfaces. Beachfront lots shall not be subject to this Paragraph.

K. Section 3.7.1 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

3.7.1 Residential Density Bonus
A. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this section is to implement State Density Bonus Law (Government Code sections 65915 through 65918) in order to provide additional opportunities for the provision of affordable housing within the City of Malibu in compliance with the policies of the Local Coastal Program. The intent of the following regulations is to ensure that the provisions of Government Code sections 65915 through 65918 are implemented in a manner that is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act and is most protective of coastal resources.

B. Eligibility. A density bonus may be granted to an eligible housing development, as defined in Government Code section 65915(i), pursuant to Government Code section 65915.

C. General Provisions.
396
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

1. Density Bonus Awarded. For a housing development qualifying pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 65915, the city shall grant a density bonus in an amount specified by Government Code section 65915. a. For the purposes of calculating the density bonus, the “maximum allowable residential density” shall be the greatest number of units allowed under the zoning ordinance, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan, or if a range of density is permitted, the greatest number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or land use element of the general plan. b. Except as otherwise required by Government Code section 65915, the density bonus units shall not be included when calculating the total number of housing units that qualifies the housing development for a density bonus. c. The city shall grant a density bonus pursuant to Government Code section 65915 if it finds that the project meets each of the following:
i. The proposed increased density is consistent with Section 30604(f) of the California Coastal Act.
ii. The project is found to be in conformity with the coastal resource protection standards in the Local Coastal Program (including but not limited to sensitive habitat, agriculture, public viewshed, public services, public recreational access and open space protections), with the exception of the density provisions.
iii. The proposed project is compatible with the goals and coastal resource protection policies of the LCP and purpose and intent of this section. d. If the City determines that the means for accommodating the density increase proposed by the applicant will have an adverse effect on coastal resources, before approving a density increase, the City shall identify all feasible means of accommodating the density increase and consider the effects of such means on coastal resources. The City shall require implementation of the means that avoid impacts to coastal resources, as required by relevant LCP policies, while still providing the density increase permitted by law.
e. For the purposes of this section, "coastal resources" means any resource which is afforded protection under the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, California Public Resources Code section 30200 et seq., including, but not limited to, public access, marine and other aquatic resources, environmentally sensitive habitat, and the visual quality of coastal areas.

2. Incentives/Concessions. The city shall grant the applicant the number of incentives and concessions required by Government Code section 65915(d). The city shall 397
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
grant the specific concession(s) or incentive(s) requested by the applicant, unless it makes any of the following written findings based upon substantial evidence:
a. The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k) of section 65915 to provide for affordable housing costs as defined in section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c) of section 65915.
b. The waiver or reduction of the development standard would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5, upon public health and or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households;
c. The waiver or reduction of the development standard would be contrary to state or federal law; or
d. The proposed project, with the requested incentive(s) or concession(s), cannot feasibly be accommodated on the site in a manner that conforms with the California Coastal Act.

3. Waiver or Reduction of Standards. Except as restricted by Government Code section 65915, the applicant for a density bonus may submit a proposal for the waiver or reduction of development standards that have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development incorporating the density bonus and any incentives or concessions granted to the applicant. A request for a waiver or reduction of development standards shall be accompanied by documentation demonstrating that the waiver or reduction is physically necessary to construct the housing development with the additional density allowed pursuant to the density bonus and incorporating any incentives or concessions required to be granted. The city shall approve a waiver or reduction of a development standard, unless it finds that:
a. The application of the development standard does not have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a housing development at the density allowed by the density bonus and with the incentives or concessions granted to the applicant;
b. The waiver or reduction of the development standard would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of section 65589.5, upon public health and or on any real property that is listed in the 398
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households;
c. The waiver or reduction of the development standard would be contrary to state or federal law; or
d. The proposed project, with the requested waiver(s) and/ reduction(s) of development standards, cannot feasibly be accommodated on the site in a manner that conforms with the California Coastal Act.

4. Parking Reduction. The applicant may request, and the city shall grant, a reduction in parking requirements in accordance with Government Code section 65915(p), as that section may be amended from time to time.

5. Construction and Integration of Affordable Units.
a. Construction of Affordable Units. For any development project that is granted a density bonus or other benefit pursuant to this section, the affordable units that qualify the project as eligible for a density bonus shall be constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of any market rate units. b. Location and Dispersal of Affordable Units. The affordable units shall be integrated with the market rate units so that there is a mix of affordable and market rate units, if any, in each building of the development project, and the affordable and market rate units shall have the same exterior appearance and quality of construction as that of the market rate units in the same housing development project.

6. Replacement Housing Requirement. Pursuant to Government Code section 65915(c)(3), as it may be amended from time to time, the applicant shall be ineligible for a density bonus or other incentives unless the applicant complies with the replacement housing requirements therein, including in the following circumstances:
a. The housing development is proposed on any parcel(s) on which rental dwelling units are subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low-income; or b. The housing development is proposed on any parcel(s) on which rental dwelling units that were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricted rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low-income have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application; or
399
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
c. The housing development is proposed on any parcel(s) on which the dwelling units are occupied by lower or very low-income households; or d. The housing development is proposed on any parcel(s) on which the dwelling units that were occupied by lower or very low-income households have been vacated or demolished in the five-year period preceding the application.

D. Procedures. The procedures for implementing this section shall be as follows:

1. Application and Review. An application for a density bonus shall be filed and processed concurrently with any other land use application(s) for the housing development, such as a coastal development permit. The reviewing authority for a density bonus shall be the city council after recommendation from the planning commission.

2. Notification to Developer. The City shall, within ninety (90) days of receipt of a written proposal to utilize a density bonus for affordable housing, notify the developer in writing of the procedures governing these provisions.

3. Documentation. The application for a density bonus shall clearly indicate the number of units pursuant to Section 3.7.1(C)(1)(a) allowed by the city’s general plan and zoning regulations, the number of density bonus units requested, the number of affordable units that will be included in the proposed project, and the location of the affordable units. The applicant shall submit reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for a requested density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios, to the satisfaction of the planning director.
.

4. Affordable Housing Agreement. For any housing development where the City approves a density bonus, including any incentive or concession, or waiver or reduction in standards, prior to issuing the coastal development permit, the owner must record an affordable housing agreement pursuant to Section 3.7.1(F).

E. Required Terms for Continued Availability of Affordable Units. The eligible housing development shall comply with Government Code section 65915(c).

F. Affordable Housing Agreement Requirements.

1. The agreement shall:
a. Provide a description of the project, how the affordable housing requirements will be met by the applicant, and whether the affordable units will be rented or owner-occupied;
b. Identify the type, size and location of each affordable housing unit required 400
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
hereunder;
c. Identify the incentive(s) and/or concession(s) provided by the City (if any) for a density bonus;
d. Identify limits on income, rent, and sales price of affordable units; e. Identify the term of the agreement, which would then define the term of affordability of the required units;
f. Require that the affordable housing units be constructed and completed by the applicant as specified in this chapter and in accordance with state law; g. Require that each affordable housing unit be kept available only to members of the identified income group at the maximum affordable rent during the term of the agreement;
h. Describe procedures for tenant selection and the process for qualifying prospective households for income eligibility;
i. Identify provisions and/or documents for resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal for owner-occupied units, or restrictions for rental units; j. Include performance guarantees (e.g., a cash deposit, bond, or letter of credit) as required by the City;
k. Include provisions for the enforcement and penalties for violation of the agreement; and
l. Identify the means by which such continued availability shall be secured and enforced and the procedures under which the affordable housing units shall be leased and shall contain such other terms and provisions, the City may require.

2. The agreement, in its form and manner of execution, shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and able to be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder.

Additional rental or resale restrictions, deeds of trust, rights of first refusal and/or other documents shall also be recorded against owner occupied affordable units.

3. The affordability of the required units shall be monitored for compliance by Planning Department staff. The Planning Director is hereby expressly authorized to act as the City’s agent to enter into the agreement for the purpose of enforcing the terms of the agreement consistent with this chapter. The agreement shall include a provision for reimbursement of the City’s costs of monitoring.

G. Density Bonus Law.
401
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

1. Compliance. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of Government Code section 65915. The requirements of Government Code section 65915, and any amendments thereto, shall prevail over any conflicting provision of this code.

2. Interpretation. The provisions of this section shall be interpreted to implement and be consistent with the requirements of Government Code section 65915. Any changes to Government Code section 65915 shall be deemed to supersede and govern over any conflicting provisions contained herein.

H. Affordable Housing Fund.

1. Fund Revenues. The fund shall receive all in-lieu fees paid and may also receive moneys from other sources.

2. Purpose and Limitations. Affordable housing fund moneys shall be used in compliance with the general plan housing element and this chapter to construct, rehabilitate, or subsidize affordable housing or assist other governmental entities, private organizations, or individuals to provide or preserve affordable housing. The fund may be used for the benefit of both rental and owner-occupied housing.

Allowed uses of fund moneys include:
a. Assistance to housing development corporations;
b. Equity participation loans;
c. Grants;
d. Pre-home ownership co-investment;
e. Predevelopment loan funds;
f. Participation leases;
g. Other public-private partnership arrangements;
h. The acquisition of property and property rights;
i. Construction of affordable housing including costs associated with planning, administration, and design, as well as actual building or installation; j. Cost of rehabilitation and maintenance of existing affordable housing when needed to preserve units that are at risk of going to a market rate or at risk deterioration;
402
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
k. Other costs associated with the construction or financing of affordable housing;
l. Reasonable administrative charges or related expenses; and m. Reasonable consultant and legal expenses related to the establishment and/or administration of the fund.

L. Section 3.11.5 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

3.11.5 Special Housing Projects
A. Emergency Shelters

1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide development standards for emergency shelters in the City of Malibu.

2. Applicability. The provisions of this section are applicable in the Commercial General (CG) and Institutional (I) zoning districts.

3. Permitted Use. Emergency shelter uses that comply with the standards in Section

3.11.5 shall be a permitted use established by-right.

4. Regulations. An emergency shelter is subject to the following standards. An application for an emergency shelter shall include a written operations plan with exhibits indicating compliance with all of the standards. a. Size Limit. The maximum number of individuals permitted to be served (eating, showering or sleeping) nightly shall not exceed the total number of beds provided within the shelter or one person per one hundred twenty-five (125) square feet of floor area, whichever is less. In no case shall occupancy exceed twenty-fifty-five (255) individuals at any one time. Total square footage of a new facility shall comply with the maximum square footage limit set forth for the underlying zoning district.
b. Facility Requirements.
i. Each occupant shall be provided a minimum of fifty (50) square feet of personal living space, not including space for common areas. ii. Bathing facilities shall be provided in quantity and location as required by the California Plumbing Code (Title 24 Part 5), and shall comply with the accessibility requirements of the California Building Code (Title 24 Part 2). 403
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
iii. Shelters must provide a storage area for refuse and recyclables that is enclosed by a six-foot high landscape screen, solid wall, or fence, which is accessible to collection vehicles on one side. The storage area must be large enough to accommodate the number of bins that are required to provide the facility with sufficient service so as to avoid the overflow of material outside of the bins provided.
iv. The shelter may provide one or more of the following specific facilities and services onsite, including but not limited to:
(1) Commercial kitchen facilities designed and operated in compliance with the California Retail Food Code;
(2) Dining area;
(3) Laundry room;
(4) Recreation room;
(5) Support services (e.g. training, counseling, etc.); and (6) Child care facilities.
v. Management. A shelter shall have an onsite management office, with at least one employee present at all times during which the shelter is in operation and is occupied by at least one resident.
vi. Proximity to Other Shelters. No emergency shelter shall be located closer than three hundred (300) feet from another emergency shelter. The three hundred (300) foot separation shall be measured from the nearest points of the property lines on which the shelters are located.
vii. Length of Stay. Individual occupancy in an emergency shelter is limited to six months in any twelve (12)-month period (Section 50801 of the Health and Safety Code).
viii. Onsite Waiting and Intake Areas. A minimum of five percent of the total square footage of a shelter shall be designated for indoor onsite waiting and intake areas. In addition, an exterior waiting area shall be provided, the minimum size of which is equal to or larger than the minimum interior waiting and intake area.
(1) Staging for drop-off, intake and pick-up should take place inside a building, at a rear or side entrance, or inner courtyard. 404
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
(2) Shelter plans shall show the size and location of any proposed waiting or occupant intake areas, interior and exterior.
ix. Off-Street Parking. Parking shall be provided, in accordance with Section

3.14.3 of the Local Coastal Program.

5. Reviewing Authority. Applications for emergency shelter use shall be reviewed by the director or designee. If the proposed use meets the requirements of this Section, the director shall issue a permit.

B. Low barrier navigation centers

1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for low barrier navigation centers.

2. Applicability. The provisions of this section are applicable in the Community Commercial (CC) district only where the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) also applies, and in the Commercial General (CG) district.

3. Permitted Use. Low barrier navigation center uses that comply with the standards in section 3.11.5(B) (4) shall be permitted uses established by-right.

4. Regulations.
a. It offers services to connect people to permanent housing through a services plan that identifies services staffing.
b. It is linked to a coordinated entry system, so that staff in the interim facility or staff who collocate in the facility may conduct assessments and provide services to connect people to permanent housing.
c. It complies with Chapter 6.5 (commencing with Section 8255) of Division 8 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
d. It has a system for entering information regarding client stays, client demographics, client income, and exit destination through the local Homeless Management Information System as defined by Section 578.3 of Title 24 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
e. Unless specifically modified by standards detailed in this Section, a low barrier navigation center shall be consistent with all objective standards that apply to other multi-family residential uses within the same zoning district. 405
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

5. Review Process. Applications for low barrier navigation centers shall be reviewed by the director or designee. If the proposed use meets the requirements of this section, the director shall issue a permit.

C. By-right Permanent Supportive Housing

1. Purpose. The purpose of this section is to provide standards for by-right permanent supportive housing. By-right permanent supportive housing is that supportive housing meeting the criteria of Section 3.5.11(D)(2) and (4). Permanent supportive housing that does not comply with the provisions of this section shall be subject to the standards, requirements, and review process for residential uses in LIP Section 3.6 Residential Development Standards, Section 3.5 General Regulations/Development Standards, Section 3.12 Landscaping and Fuel Modification, Section 3.14 Parking Regulations, and all other applicable sections of the LIP.

2. Applicability. The provisions of this section are applicable in the Community Commercial (CC) district only where the AHO (Section 3.4.5) also applies, and the following districts: Multiple Family Residential (MF), Multifamily Beach Front (MFBF), and Commercial General (CG).

3. Permitted Use. By-right permanent supportive housing uses that comply with the standards in sections 3.11.5(C)(4) shall be established by-right.

4. Regulations. By-right permanent supportive housing shall satisfy each of the following requirements:
a. All provisions of Government Code section 65651(a).
b. Unless specifically modified by standards detailed in this section, the supportive housing development is consistent with all objective standards that apply to other multi-family residential use within the same zoning district. c. Parking spaces are provided for the supportive housing consistent with the standards that apply to multi-family residential use in LIP Section 3.14, unless the development is within one-half mile of a public transit stop, in which case one parking space shall be required for each employee on the maximum staff shift.

D. Single-Room Occupancy Facility Requirements
The following standards shall apply to any single-room occupancy (SRO) facility development proposal in addition to all other commercial development standards set forth in this chapter. The provisions of this Section are applicable in the Commercial General (CG) zoning district.
406
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

1. SRO units shall be for the purposes of providing affordable housing and shall not serve the purpose of recreational or travel needs.

2. Size / Occupancy. Minimum size of one hundred fifty (150) square feet and maximum size of four hundred (400) square feet per SRO unit. Occupancy is a maximum of two individuals.

3. Laundry facilities must be provided onsite.

4. Bathroom. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full bathroom facilities. If a full bathroom is not provided, common bathroom facilities shall be provided in accordance with the California Building Code for congregate residences with at least one full bathroom per floor of the facility.

5. Kitchen. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full kitchen facilities. If a kitchen is not provided, at least one common full kitchen shall be provided per floor of the facility.

6. Management. The SRO facility must provide twenty-four (24) hour onsite management. The applicant shall provide a copy of the proposed rules governing the SRO facility to the City. The management will be solely responsible for the enforcement of all rules that are reviewed and approved by the reviewing authority.

7. Off-street Parking. Parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 3.14.3 of the Local Implementation Plan.

8. Facilities must provide a storage area for refuse and recyclables that is enclosed by a six-foot high landscape screen, solid wall, or fence, which is accessible to collection vehicles on one side. The storage area must be large enough to accommodate the number of bins that are required to provide the facility with sufficient service so as to avoid the overflow of material outside of the bins provided.

M. Section 3.14.3 subpart Residential Units shall be replaced in its entirety as follows.

The remaining subparts of Section 3.14.3 shall be unchanged.

PARKING STANDARDS
Residential Units
Emergency shelters One parking space per employee on the largest maximum staff shift.
407
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
Large residential care facility One space for every two beds and 1 space for every employee.

In addition, 1 off-street parking space for each outside employee shall be provided and maintained.

Low barrier navigation center One parking space per employee on the maximum staff shift.

Multi-family units For each efficiency or one-bedroom dwelling unit, 1 space.

For each dwelling unit with two or more bedrooms - 2 ½
spaces.

Guest parking for each 4 units or fraction thereof, 1 space.

Single-family residence Two enclosed spaces and two unenclosed spaces Single-room occupancy For two units, 1 space (inclusive of guest parking).

In addition, 2 spaces for the resident manager.

Small residential care facility 2 enclosed and 2 unenclosed spaces.

Supportive housing Parking shall be as required for other uses of the same housing type in the same zone, except that by-right
permanent supportive housing parking shall be as required in Section 3.11.5(D)(4)(c).

Transitional housing Parking shall be as required for other uses of the same housing type in the same zone.

N. Section 6.7(A) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows.

A. Applications for new development in scenic areas visible from public viewing areas, public trails, beaches, or scenic roads shall include a visual analysis that includes:

1. Grading plan, if any grading is proposed.

2. Cross sections of the project site showing the proposed grading and structures. 408
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

3. Line of sight analysis showing the view of the project site from public viewing areas.

4. Photos of the project site from public viewing areas and/or scenic roads, with story poles placed on the site to indicate the proposed location and maximum height of all structures and stakes placed on the site to indicate the extent of all proposed grading for all proposed single-family residential and non-residential developments.

5. For multi-family residential development, in lieu of story poles, photosimulations and visual impact analysis exhibits depicting the potential impacts of a proposed multi-family residential development on the identified public views, may be provided at the discretion of the Director.

6. An analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed development on the identified public views.

7. Project alternatives designed to avoid and minimize impacts to visual resources.

8. Mitigation measures necessary to minimize or mitigate residual impacts that cannot be avoided through project siting and design alternatives.

O. Section 13.30(B)(3) shall be replaced in its entirety as follows.

3. A person with a disability is a person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; anyone who is regarded as having such impairment; or anyone who has a record of such impairment. This section shall only apply to those persons who are defined as disabled under the Acts.

P. Sections 13.30(D), (E), (F), (G) and (H) shall be replaced in their entirety as follows.

D. Reviewing Authority.

1. Applications for reasonable accommodation shall be reviewed by the Director or his/her designee, if no approval is sought other than the request for reasonable accommodation.

2. Applications for reasonable accommodation submitted for concurrent review with a CDP application shall be reviewed by the authority reviewing the CDP application.

E. Findings. A written decision to grant, grant with conditions, or deny a request for reasonable accommodation shall make all of the following findings in compliance with the Acts:
409
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

1. The housing, which is the subject of the request, will be occupied by a person with disability as defined in subsection (B)(3) above.

2. The reasonable accommodation is necessary to make the specific housing available to a person with a disability as defined in subsection (B)(3) above.

3. The reasonable accommodation would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the City.

4. The reasonable accommodation would not require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the LCP.

3. The reasonable accommodation would not adversely impact coastal resources, including:
a. Would not conflict with any easements required for public access through, or public use of a portion of the property that the project is located on; b. Would not adversely impact wetlands, environmentally sensitive habitat area, and/or public views; and
c. There is no feasible alternative that would accomplish the same purpose of the reasonable accommodations request that would be more protective of coastal resources.

4. The project that is the subject of the approved reasonable accommodation conforms to the applicable provisions of the LCP and the applicable provisions of this section, with the exception of the provision(s) for which the reasonable accommodation is granted.

F. Decision.

1. The Director shall consider an application, and issue a written determination within forty-five (45) calendar days of the date of receipt of a completed application. If necessary, to reach a determination on any request for reasonable accommodation, the review authority may request further information from the applicant consistent with this section, specifying in detail what information is required. In the event a request for further information is made, the applicable time period to issue a written determination shall be stayed until the applicant responds to the request.

2. At least ten (10) calendar days before issuing a written determination on the application, the Director shall mail notice to the applicant and all abutting property owners and occupants and those immediately across the street that the City will be 410
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
considering the application and inviting written comments on the requested accommodation.

3. Notice of Planning Commission meeting to review and act on the application, if submitted for concurrent review with a CDP application, shall be made in writing, ten (10) calendar days prior to the meeting and mailed to the applicant and all abutting property owners and occupants as well as those immediately across the street.

4. The review authority’s written decision shall set forth the findings, any conditions or approval, notice of the right to appeal and the right to request reasonable accommodation on the appeals process, if necessary. The decision shall be mailed to the applicant, and when the approving authority is the Director, to any person having provided written or verbal comment on the application.

5. The written decision of the reviewing authority shall be final unless appealed in the manner set forth in subsection (F)(8) below.

6. While a request for reasonable accommodation is pending, all laws and regulations otherwise applicable to the property that is the subject of the request shall remain in full force and effect.

7. Where the improvements or modification approved through reasonable accommodation would generally require a variance, a variance shall not be required.

G. The review and approval of a reasonable accommodations request is not contingent upon the findings of other discretionary actions, including those required for review of a discretionary land use approval processed concurrently with a reasonable accommodations request.

H. Conditions of Approval. In granting a request for reasonable accommodation, the reviewing authority may impose any conditions of approval deemed reasonable and necessary to ensure that the reasonable accommodation would comply with the findings required by subsection E of this section.

I. Appeals. The process set forth in Section 13.20 shall apply, as supplemented by the following:

1. The Planning Commission or the City Council, as applicable, shall hear the matter and render a determination as soon as reasonably practicable, but in no event later than ninety (90) calendar days after an appeal has been filed. All determinations shall address and be based upon the same findings required to be made in the original determination from which the appeal is taken.
411
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

2. The City shall provide notice of an appeal hearing to the applicant, adjacent property owners and any other person requesting notification at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing. The appeal authority shall announce its findings within thirty (30) calendar days of the hearing, unless good cause is found for an extension, and the decision shall be mailed to the applicant. The Council’s action shall be final.

3. If an individual needs assistance in filing an appeal on an adverse decision, the City shall provide assistance to ensure that the appeals process is accessible.

4. Nothing in this procedure shall preclude an aggrieved individual from seeking other state or federal remedy available.

J. Waiver of Time Periods. Notwithstanding any provisions in this section regarding the occurrence of any action within a specified period of time, the applicant may request additional time beyond that provided for in this section or may request a continuance regarding any decision or consideration by the City of a pending appeal. Extensions of time sought by applicants shall not be considered delay on the part of the City, shall not constitute failure by the City to provide for prompt decisions on applications and shall not be a violation of any required time period set forth in this section.

K. Discontinuance. Unless the review authority determines a reasonable accommodation runs with the land, a reasonable accommodation shall lapse if the rights granted by it are discontinued for one hundred eighty (180) consecutive days. If the person initially occupying a residence or business vacates, the reasonable accommodation shall remain in effect only if the Director determines that:

1. The modification is physically integrated into a structure and cannot easily be removed or altered to comply with Chapter 3 of the Local Implementation Plan;

2. Its removal would constitute an unreasonable financial burden; and

3. The accommodation is necessary to give another disabled individual an equal opportunity to enjoy the dwelling or business.
a. The Director may request the applicant or his or her successor-in-interest to the property to provide documentation that subsequent occupants are persons with disabilities. Failure to provide such documentation within ten (10) days of the date of a request by the Director shall constitute grounds for discontinuance by the City of a previously approved reasonable accommodation.

Q. The following subparts of Appendix 1, Table B, shall be replaced in their entirety as follows.

USE RR SF MF MFBF MHR CR BPO CN CC CV-1 CV-2 CG OS I PRF RVP 412
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

RESIDENTIAL
Multifamily
residential
(including duplexes,
condominiums,
stock cooperatives,
apartments, and
similar
developments) –
new or the
expansion of over
500 sf of
multifamily
residential use
P19 P19 P20
Small residential
care facilities
(serving 6 or less
persons)
P P P P • • • • • • • • • • • •
Q. The following subpart of Appendix 1, Table B, shall be deleted in its entirety as follows:

Residential care
facilities (serving 6
or fewer persons)
P P P • • • • • • • • • • • • •
R. The following subparts shall be added to Appendix 1, Table B.

USE RR SF MF MFBF MHR CR BPO CN CC CV-1 CV-2 CG OS I PRF RVP Employee housing
for 6 or fewer
persons
P21 P21 P21 P21 • • • • • • • • • • • •
Supportive housing P17 P17 P18 P18 • • • • P24 • • P18 • P18 • • Supportive housing,
by-right P22 P22 P25 • • P22
Transitional housing P17 P17 P18 P18 • • • • P24 • • P18 • P18 • • Low barrier
navigation center • • • • • • • • P23 • • P26 • • • •
413
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
S. The following Note 20 of Appendix 1, Table B, shall be replaced in its entirety as follows.

20. Multi-family development is only permitted in the CC zone if it is associated with an affordable housing development project within the Affordable Housing Overlay (APNs 4458-022-023 and 4458-022-024 4458-022-908 only), in compliance with Section 3.4.5.

T. The following Notes 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26 shall be added to Appendix 1, Table B.

21. Employee housing for 6 or fewer persons is permitted in the same manner as one single family residence and is subject to all the restrictions that apply to single family residential uses.

22. Subject to Section 3.11.5.

23. Allowed only on APN 4458-022-908 in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) District.

24. Transitional and supportive housing is permitted in the same manner as a multi-family residential use and is subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses. Allowed only on APN 4458-022-908 in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) District.

25. Allowed only on APN 4458-022-908 in the Affordable Housing Overlay (AHO) District, and subject to Section 3.11.5.

26. Allowed pursuant to Section 3.11.5.
414
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
Exhibit B
Title 17 Zoning of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) is amended as follows:

A. The following definitions shall be added to Section 17.02.060:
“By-Right Use” means that the City’s review of the use may not require a conditional use permit, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary local government review or approval that would constitute a “project” for purposes of Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
“Coordinated entry system” means a centralized or coordinated assessment system developed pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations as specified in Government Code Section 65662, and any related requirements, designed to coordinate program participant intake, assessment, and referrals. “Low Barrier Navigation Center” means a Housing First, low barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. “Low barrier” includes best practices to reduce barriers to entry, such as allowing partners, pets, storage of personal items, and privacy (as provided in Government Code §65660(a), as the same may be amended from time to time).
“Permanent supportive housing” means the same as “Supportive housing.” “Residential care facility, small” means a family home, group care facility, or similar facility for six or less persons that is maintained and operated to provide 24-hour nonmedical residential care for seven or less, children, or adults and children in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or the protection of the individual. This use includes the administration of limited medical assistance. The residential care facility, small may include such a facility licensed by the State of California.

B. The following definitions in Section 17.02.060 shall be replaced in their entirety as follows:
“Emergency shelter" means housing with minimal supportive services for homeless persons, which is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay. “Lower income households” means those households earning less than 80 percent of the Los Angeles County median income, and includes very-low-income households, as defined in California Health and Safety Code §50105, and extremely low-income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code §50106, as the same may be amended from time to time. 415
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
“Supportive housing” means a building or buildings configured as rental housing development with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by a "target population," and that is linked to on- or off-site services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Supportive housing is a residential use subject only to the same regulations and procedures that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. (Also referred to as, “permanent supportive housing”).

C. Section 17.08.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.08.020. Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the RR district:

A. One single-family residence per lot;
B. Small family day care;
C. Residential care facilities, small;
D. Accessory uses and structures as follows:

1. Accessory buildings customarily ancillary to single-family residences including, but not limited to, guest units seven hundred fifty (750 square feet maximum), detached garages, barns, pool houses, gazebos, storage sheds, and greenhouses (noncommercial),

2. Recreational structures including, but not limited to, pools, spas, nonilluminated sports courts, and corrals,

3. Domestic animals, kept as pets or for personal use,

4. Raising of crops including, but not limited to, field, trees, bush, berry row and nursery stock, provided there is no retail sale from the premises,

5. Raising of horses, sheep, goats, donkeys, mules and other equine cattle for personal use by residents on the premises, subject to the following conditions:
a. The subject property is a minimum of 15,000 square feet in size, b. The maximum number of animals listed above does not exceed one animal (over six months of age) for every 5,000 square feet of lot area, c. The animals shall be maintained in an area a minimum of 50 feet from any building used for human habitation;
416
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

6. Agricultural employee housing, crop related.

E. The following agricultural uses; provided, that all buildings or structures used in conjunction therewith shall be located not less than 50 feet from any street or highway or any building used for human habitation:

1. The raising of horses and other equine, cattle, sheep and goats, including the breeding and training of such animals, on a parcel having an area of not less than one acre and provided that not more than eight such animals per acre of the total ground area be kept or maintained in conjunction with such use,

2. The grazing of cattle, horses, sheep or goats on a parcel with an area of not less than five acres, including the supplemental feeding of such animals, provided:
a. That such grazing is not a part of nor conducted in conjunction with any dairy, livestock feed yard, livestock sales yard or commercial riding academy located on the same premises,
b. That no buildings, structures, pens or corrals designed or intended to be used for the housing or concentrated feeding of such stock be used on the premises for such grazing other than racks for supplementary feeding, troughs for watering, or incidental fencing,

3. Raising of poultry, fowl, birds, rabbits, fish, bees and other animals of comparable nature, provided the subject parcel is a minimum of one acre in size,

4. The raising of hogs or pigs, provided:
a. That the animals are located not less than 150 feet from any highway and not less than 50 feet from the side or rear lines of any parcel, b. That the animals shall not be fed any market refuse or similar imported ingredient or anything other than table refuse from meals consumed on the same parcel of land, or grain,
c. That no more than two weaned hogs or pigs are kept,
d. That the subject parcel is a minimum of one acre in size; F. Manufactured homes, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3; G. Second units, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2; 417
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
H. Large family day care facilities (serving seven to 12 persons), subject to the provisions of Section 17.66.110;
I. Private equestrian and/or hiking trails;
J. Greenhouses on a lot or parcel of land having an area of at least one acre; K. Temporary placement of mobilehomes and trailers subject to the conditions of Section

17.40.040(A)(18);
L. Transitional and supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses; M. Supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses; and N. Employee housing for six or fewer persons permitted in the same manner as a singlefamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

D. Section 17.10.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.10.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the SF district:

A. One single-family residence per lot;
B. Small family day care;
C. Residential care facilities, small;
D. Accessory uses and structures as follows:

1. Accessory buildings customarily ancillary to single-family residences including, but not limited to, guest units 900 square feet maximum, detached garages, barns, pool houses, gazebos, storage sheds, and greenhouses (noncommercial),

2. Recreational structures including, but not limited to, pools, spas, nonilluminated sports courts, and noncommercial corrals,

3. Domestic animals,

4. Raising of crops including, but not limited to, field, trees, bush, berry row and nursery stock, provided there is no retail sale from the premises, 418
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3

5. Raising of horses, sheep, goats, donkeys, mules and other equine cattle for personal use by residents on the premises, subject to the following conditions:
a. The subject property is a minimum of 15,000 square feet in size, b. The maximum number of animals listed above does not exceed one animal (over six months of age) for every 5,000 square feet of lot area, c. The animals shall be maintained in an area a minimum of 50 feet from any building used for human habitation;

6. Agricultural employee housing, crop related,
E. Manufactured homes, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3; F. Second units, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2; G. Large family day care facilities (serving seven to 12 persons), subject to Section

17.66.110;
H. Temporary placement of mobilehomes and trailers subject to the conditions of Section

17.40.040(A)(18);
I. Transitional and supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses; J. Supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses; and K. Employee housing for six or fewer persons permitted in the same manner as a singlefamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

E. Section 17.12.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.12.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the MF district:

A. One single-family residence per lot;
B. Multiple-family residential uses, including duplexes, condominiums, stock cooperatives, apartments and other similar developments – new or the expansion of over 500 square feet of multiple-family residential use; C. Small family day care;
419
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
D. Residential care facilities, small;
E. Accessory uses and structures as follows:

1. Accessory buildings customarily ancillary to single-family residences including, but not limited to, detached garages, barns, pool houses, gazebos, storage sheds, guest units (750 square feet maximum) and greenhouses (noncommercial),

2. Recreational structures including, but not limited to, pools, spas, nonilluminated sports courts, and corrals,

3. Domestic animals;
F. Manufactured homes, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3; G. Second units, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2; H. Large family day care facilities (serving seven to 12 persons), subject to Section

17.66.110;
I. Temporary placement of mobilehomes and trailers subject to the conditions of Section

17.40.040(A)(18);
J. Transitional and supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses.; K. Supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential, except that by-right permanent supportive housing shall meet the criteria in Section 17.40.120(C) of this title;
L. Affordable housing development projects.; and
M. Employee housing for six or fewer persons permitted in the same manner as a singlefamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

F. Section 17.12.040 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.12.040. Conditionally permitted uses.

The following uses may be permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit:

A. Horticultural related activities;
420
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
B. Utility facilities related to public projects;
C. Governmental facilities;
D. Nursery schools, day care facilities;
E. Churches, temples and other places of worship;
F. Lighted sports courts;
G. Neighborhood recreation facilities for use by surrounding residents and operated by a nonprofit corporation or neighborhood association for noncommercial purposes; H. Parks and playgrounds;
I. Emergency communication and service facilities.

G. Section 17.14.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.14.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the MFBF district:

A. One single-family residence per lot;
B. New, or the expansion over 500 square feet of, multiple-family residential uses, including duplexes, condominiums, stock cooperatives, apartments and other similar developments;
C. Expansion up to 500 square feet of existing multifamily buildings provided the expansion conforms to the provisions of Chapter 17.40;
D. Accessory uses and structures as follows:

1. Accessory buildings customarily ancillary to single-family and multifamily residences including, but not limited to, detached garages, pool houses, gazebos, storage sheds, guest units (750 square feet maximum),

2. Recreational structures including, but not limited to, pools, spas, nonilluminated sports courts,

3. Domestic animals;
E. Manufactured homes, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.3; F. Second units, pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2; 421
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
G. Transitional housing permitted in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses.; H. Supportive housing permitted in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential, except that by-right permanent supportive housing shall meet the criteria in Section 17.40.120(C) of this title;
I. Residential care facilities, small;
I. Affordable housing development projects; and
J. Employee housing for six or fewer persons permitted in the same manner as a singlefamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

H. Section 17.14.040 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.14.040. Conditionally permitted uses.

The following uses may be permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit:

A. Utility facilities related to public projects;
B. Lighted sports courts;
C. Neighborhood recreation facilities for use by surrounding residents and operated by a nonprofit corporation or neighborhood association for noncommercial purposes; D. Parks and playgrounds;
E. Emergency communication and service facilities.

I. Section 17.24.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.24.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the CC district:

A. All permitted uses and activities set forth in Section 17.22.020 (CN District); B. Medical, dental and physical therapy clinics and health clubs and dance studios; C. Multifamily affordable housing development projects in the Affordable Housing Overlay Zone (AHO)(Section 17.42.020(L));
422
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
D. Transitional housing permitted in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHO)(Section 17.42.020(L)) in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses in the AHO; E. Supportive housing permitted in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHO)(Section 17.42.020(L)) in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses in the AHO, except that by-right permanent supportive housing shall be consistent with Section

17.40.120(C) of this title;
F. Low barrier navigation center permitted in the Affordable Housing Overlay District (AHO)(Section 17.42.020(L)) and consistent with Section 17.40.120(B) of this title.

J. Sections 17.30.020 and 17.30.30 shall be replaced in their entirety as follows:

17.30.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses and structures are permitted in the CG district:

A. All permitted uses set forth in Section 17.28.020 (CV-2 district); B. Masonry supplies;
C. Sculptural and metal art activities.

D. Emergency shelters;
E. Single-room occupancy facilities.

F. Transitional housing permitted in conjunction with a mixed use project or single-room occupancy facility in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses; G. Supportive housing permitted in conjunction with a mixed use project or single-room occupancy facility in the same manner as a multifamily residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to multifamily residential uses except that by-right permanent supportive housing shall be consistent with Section 17.40.120(C) of this title;

H. Low barrier navigation center permitted consistent with Section 17.40.120(B) of this title.

17.30.030. Conditionally permitted uses.

The following uses may be permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit:

A. All conditionally permitted uses set forth in Section 17.28.030 (CV-2 district), excluding overnight accommodations;
423
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
B. Car washes and car washing;
C. Wastewater storage and hauling;
D. Communication facilities;
E. Cultural and artistic uses, such as museums, galleries, performing arts studios; F. Light industrial uses which are not obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, noxious gases, noise, vibration, glare, heat or other impacts, nor hazardous by way of materials, process, product, waste or other methods. These uses shall include the following:

1. Automobile towing and storage,

2. Manufacturing, processing or treatment of products,

3. Research and development and testing facilities,

4. Wholesale, storage and distribution,

5. Other uses determined by the planning director to be of a similar nature and not more objectionable than the uses listed above;
G. Movie theaters;
H. Neighborhood-serving construction services shall be located on a parcel that is at least five acres in net lot area.

I. Large residential care facilities involving seven or more persons.

J. Mixed Use (commercial and residential)
K. Sections 17.34.020 and 17.34.30 shall be replaced in their entirety as follows:

17.34.020 Permitted uses.

The following uses are permitted in the I district:

A. One single-family residence in conjunction with an institutional use and consistent with the provisions of Chapter 17.08;
B. Wireless telecommunications antennae and facilities (pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 17.46 and Section 17.62.040) that comply with the most restrictive design standards set forth in Section 17.96.070;
424
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
C. Government facilities including police and fire stations and government offices; D. Equestrian and hiking trails (public and private);
E. Recreation facilities such as swimming pools, sandboxes, slides, swings, lawn bowling, volleyball courts, tennis courts, and similar uses (subject to provisions of Section

17.34.030 when a facility is located within a side or rear yard adjacent to a residentiallyzoned parcel); F. Emergency shelters;
G. Transitional housing permitted in conjunction with an institutional use in the same manner as single-family residences and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses; and
H. Supportive housing permitted in conjunction with an institutional use in the same manner as single-family residences and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses.

17.34.030 Conditionally permitted uses.

The following uses may be permitted subject to obtaining a conditional use permit:

A. Public or private educational institutions;
B. Towing and automobile storage;
C. Maintenance yards;
D. Public utility facilities;
E. Libraries, museums;
F. Community centers;
G. Health care facilities;
H. Religious institutions;
J. Day care facilities, nursery schools;
J. Accessory uses when part of an educational or nonprofit use (noncommercial), including animal husbandry with related facilities and activities, agriculture provided no retail sale from the premises, green-houses, and similar uses; K. Educational (nonprofit) activities;
425
Ordinance No. 523

____________________

Attachment 3
L. Emergency communication and service facilities;
M. Farmers' markets operated by a nonprofit charitable organization; N. Sports field lighting of the main sports field at Malibu High School (pursuant to the provisions of Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan Sections 4.6.2 and 6.5(G));
O. Helipad sites (public agency use only and not for private use); P. Charitable, philanthropic activities;
Q. Parks, beaches, and playgrounds;
R. Recreation facilities adjacent to a residentially-zoned parcel when located within a side or rear yard (such as swimming pools, sandboxes, slides, swings, lawn bowling, volleyball courts, tennis courts, and similar uses);
S. Residential care facilities for the elderly.

L. Section 17.39.020 shall be replaced in its entirety as follows:

17.39.020 Permitted uses.

Lot numbers are as identified on Malibu Coast Estate Planned Development Map 1. The following uses and structures are permitted:

A. Lot Nos. 1—5.

1. One single-family residence per lot.

2. Accessory uses (one second unit or guest house per lot, garages, swimming pools, spas, pool houses, cabanas, water features, gazebos, storage sheds, private non-illuminated sports courts, noncommercial greenhouses, gated driveways, workshops, gyms, home studios, home offices, and reasonably similar uses normally associated with a single-family residence, as determined by the planning director).

3. Domestic animals, kept as pets.

4. Landscaping.

5. Transitional housing permitted in the same manner as a single-family residence and subject to all the restrictions that apply to single-family residential uses. 426
Ordinance No. 523