Malibu council adopts emergency rebuild ordinance package to speed post‑fire rebuilding

Malibu City Council on March 6 approved an urgency ordinance and introduced a companion ordinance and Local Coastal Program amendment to speed rebuilding for properties damaged or destroyed in recent wildfires, including the 2025 Palisades fire.

The action — adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 524U and introduction (first reading) of Ordinance No. 524 — updates the Malibu Municipal Code (Title 17) and the certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) to clarify when residents may rebuild “like for like,” when they may use a de minimis waiver (DMW) instead of a coastal development permit (CDP), and how the city will handle related items such as on‑site wastewater systems, seawalls, water storage, temporary housing and landscaping.

Why it matters: The package is intended to shorten permit timelines and reduce uncertainty for property owners who lost homes in wildfires, while keeping city staff and neighboring property impacts under review. Council members and staff spent several hours updating draft language to address FEMA flood‑elevation needs, view protection on beachfront lots, and public‑safety questions about temporary housing and foundations.

The council voted on a motion described by staff as “adopt staff’s recommendation, with the changes presented” and the roll call vote recorded the measure as approved. The urgency ordinance requires a four‑fifths vote and passed. The council also voted to introduce the regular (non‑urgency) ordinance for first reading; that ordinance would return for a later final vote.

Major provisions - Terminology and scope: The package replaces references to “primary development footprint/area” with a consolidated definition, “primary development pad,” across both the LCP and the MMC, and adds a corresponding “secondary development pad.” Planning staff said this aligns city code with the Coastal Commission’s exemption language. - De minimis waivers and appeals: The drafts strengthen reporting and clarify that de minimis waivers remain appealable to the California Coastal Commission only in the narrow circumstances that an otherwise appealable CDP would be appealable. Staff explained that the city will apply Coastal Commission staff language and limit appeals to the types listed in the LCP’s definition of “appealable coastal development permit.” - FEMA/flood elevation and height: The ordinance clarifies how replacement structures that must be raised to meet FEMA flood elevations will be treated. The replacement finished‑floor elevation may be raised only as needed to meet FEMA minimums; the text also attempts to prevent replacement projects from gaining additional allowable structure height that would create a new nonconforming height. Council and staff debated wording several times; staff said the final phrasing aims to ensure a replacement ‘‘may remain the same’’ in structural height and ‘‘no additional height shall be allowed’’ where that would create a nonconforming condition. - Rebuild Development Permit (RDP): The code adds a new rebuild development permit as a streamlined entitlement for defined post‑disaster items where a PV alone would not suffice, including accessory systems (on‑site wastewater treatment systems), water tanks and other water storage devices (when required or recommended by federal/state agencies), certain seawall work, and driveway/retaining‑wall adjustments needed to restore access. Staff said the RDP mirrors many DMW allowances but is tailored for rebuilds under the MMC. - Planning verification (PV) and limits: Existing PV language that allows a like‑for‑like rebuild plus a limited increase (commonly expressed in practice as up to 10%) remains, but the ordinance adds a narrowly crafted exception (C1) for beachfront lots in FEMA situations: replacement structures “shall seek increases in square footage laterally before they are allowed to increase vertically” to protect neighboring ocean views. - Temporary housing and foundations: The ordinance keeps a requirement that temporary housing be occupied only by the property owner or tenants who lived on the property at the disaster date and their families. City staff and the building official said a limited geotechnical (desktop) report signed by a licensed professional must be submitted for temporary housing siting; the building official told the council, “This is not a self certification,” and said the building official will review and accept the report before a permit is issued. The public‑safety aim is to avoid placing families on debris‑flow or flood paths. - Foundation standards: The changes require minimum temporary foundation ties and anchor systems that are compatible with the California Building Code (Chapters 16 and 18) and Appendix G, and staff showed examples of temporary manufactured‑home foundation details used after the Woolsey fire. Staff said temporary foundations do not become the permanent foundation if the home later seeks conversion to an ADU; a full geotechnical report and a permanent foundation design would be required for a conversion. - Landscaping, irrigation and home‑hardening: The amendments ban planting new eucalyptus trees in many locations, narrow turf allowances, and require “efficiently irrigated plants and trees” in certain setback bands. The council discussed irrigation shutoff devices and asked staff to return with options for home‑hardening guidance. Staff noted irrigation in geologic hazard areas will be reviewed by a geotechnical consultant to reduce slope/flood risk. - Notices and public review: Where a replacement structure is proposed substantially outside the prior footprint or introduces new building mass above 18 feet, the code will require site plan review, story poles and expanded noticing (staff cited a 1,000‑foot notice in cases tied to primary view determinations). - Enforcement and fines: The ordinance raises the fine for failing to obtain required removal verification to $1,000 per day and adds a 5‑year ineligibility period for temporary‑housing placement on properties that violate the temporary‑housing occupancy rule. Staff said the city can include a condition on temporary‑housing permits authorizing the city to remove noncompliant structures at the owner’s expense, with due process and notice.

Debate and concerns Councilmembers and staff repeatedly revised the FEMA/height language to make the rule readable and enforceable at the counter. One recurring concern was preventing a post‑disaster rebuild from using the DMW or PV process to assemble a sequence of approvals that would allow owners to install accessory infrastructure (for example, a seawall or OWTS) and then later claim a different principal home plan that the city would not have approved. Planning staff said the intent is to ensure the principal use of the lot is established before accessory structures may be approved, describing the Woolsey‑era two‑step process as an exception that was granted then but should not be treated as standard without council direction. The council also debated whether the 10% rebuild allowance should be treated as a code‑compensation mechanism for modern code requirements or as a more general development ‘‘benefit’’; staff explained how the three metrics (floor area, height and bulk) interact in practice.

Decisions and next steps The council approved the urgency ordinance (No. 524U) and introduced the companion ordinance (No. 524) for first reading. The urgency ordinance takes effect immediately (staff indicated the urgency provisions apply starting the next day), and the regular LCP/MMC ordinance will return for subsequent readings as required. Staff noted the city’s rebuild center was scheduled to open March 10 and urged property owners to submit required documentation, including ROEs (reports of damage/loss).

Quotations - Planning staff member Tyler summarized the group’s earlier consensus on definitions: “I think we all agreed, there was consensus at the council for the primary development pad.” - On temporary‑housing review, the building official Yolanda said: “This needs to have a registered engineer looked at it. This is a critical data. We want to make sure that when we issue a permit for temporary housing, that we do our due diligence for safety. This is not a self certification.” - At adjournment Mayor Stewart urged action from property owners: “Get your applications in.”

What the council directed staff to do - Finalize the LCP amendment text so it matches the MMC changes where the two documents overlap. Staff will substitute the LCP language in one place where the council requested consistent wording. - Return with clarified, user‑facing explanatory language for counter staff and applicants so the rules are interpretable at the permit counter. - Add follow‑up research on irrigation shutoff options and bring home‑hardening details to a future workshop with fire and landscaping professionals.

Votes and formal actions - Urgency ordinance adoption: Ordinance No. 524U (urgency). Outcome: approved (roll call affirmative; motion carried). The urgency ordinance applies immediately under state procedures. The record shows unanimous affirmative votes by the five councilmembers present on the roll call for this measure. - Introduction/first reading: Ordinance No. 524 (LCP and MMC amendments). Outcome: introduced/first reading; to return for further action.

Ending note Staff said the rebuild center is scheduled to open March 10 to receive applications and supporting materials. Council members repeatedly cautioned staff to bring future major code changes to public workshops before publishing final drafts so the public and professional stakeholders can shape implementation details.