Planning commission approves multiple deadline extensions for Woolsey fire rebuilds amid debate over ordinance limits

The Malibu Planning Commission on Feb. 3 approved a set of multi-year deadline extensions for property owners still rebuilding after the 2018 Woolsey Fire, voting to grant case-by-case relief while debating how far the commission may reasonably extend deadlines set originally by city council ordinances.

Commissioners approved extension requests during the consent-calendar period after a staff presentation explaining the department’s interpretation of several previously adopted council ordinances that had extended reconstruction deadlines for Woolsey victims. The approvals were routine for most commissioners but drew questions and a dissent from Commissioner John Mazza, who said the practice risked exceeding the maximum extension period council intended.

Staff said the city’s practice has been to treat planning-commission extensions as a combined total not to exceed nine years, and that the department had communicated that interpretation to affected property owners since the 2023 ordinance. Staff also summarized the financial and personal hardships cited by applicants, including underinsurance, delayed settlements with Southern California Edison, probate and family illnesses, and higher construction and financing costs.

Commissioner Craig Hill and others urged leniency given the continuing disruption some families face. Commissioner Mazza argued the commission must follow the council’s limits and the plain language of ordinance 17.60.02(c), which he said was intended to cap extensions and avoid indefinite delays. The city attorney and planning staff told commissioners they had discretion to grant extensions so long as they made findings required by the code; they also cautioned about takings and other legal consequences if a property were rendered unusable by strict application of standards.

Votes at a glance: - Item 3A7 (planning-verification extension): motion to adopt staff resolution passed (Commissioners Leonard, Smith, Hill and Peake voted yes; Commissioner Mazza voted no). Staff described extraordinary hardships including $1.9 million underinsurance and ongoing family support obligations; applicant expected unresolved SCE settlement. - Item 3A8 (planning-verification extension, different parcel): motion to approve as requested passed (unanimous roll call). Staff noted prior adjournments and that applicants have had multiple schedule disruptions. - Item 3A9 (planning-verification extension): motion to approve as requested passed (unanimous roll call). - Item 3A10 (planning-verification extension for tank inclusion): motion to approve as requested passed (unanimous roll call); staff advised the tank is eligible for planning verification and must be included. - Item 3A16 (planning-verification/building-permit extension): motion to approve as requested passed (unanimous roll call). - Item 3A19 (planning-verification/building-permit extension): motion to approve as requested passed (unanimous roll call).

What changed and why it matters Staff and several commissioners stressed that the extensions are intended to let homeowners complete the planning process in light of continuing financial and logistical hurdles tied to large insurance settlements, construction costs and, for some applicants, pending litigation or mediation with utilities. Commissioner Hill urged applicants to avoid piecemeal filings that repeatedly consume staff time, and suggested incentives to encourage applicants to present their full rebuild program up front.

Mazza warned that routinely granting long extensions risks undermining the ordinance language and could invite loss of public confidence or legal challenges. Staff said they are preparing clearer draft language for a zoning text amendment the commission will consider after the council’s direction on Feb. 20, and that future ordinance language may change how reconstructions after the Palisades fire are handled.

Several applicants were not present; staff said some were unable to attend because of ongoing medical or family crises related to the fires. Commissioners repeatedly praised planning staff for their workload and asked staff to preserve procedural clarity while trying to be responsive to victims.

Ending Commissioners approved the extension requests before them and asked staff to bring clearer ordinance language back to the council and commission so future rebuild timelines and expectations are unambiguous. The planning commission also signaled it will review proposed changes after the Feb. 20 council meeting addressing post-fire rebuild rules.