Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Rebuild Policy Coastal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Malibu council adopts clarified beachfront rebuild rule, requires coastal engineer sign‑offs
Summary
The Malibu City Council adopted final language for coastal/wave uprush requirements that ties beachfront replacement structures to FEMA flood elevations and requires design documentation from a licensed coastal engineer, while rejecting additional city‑imposed sea‑level rise standards. The vote was 4–1.
Malibu City Council on Oct. 15 adopted clarifying language for coastal requirements affecting beachfront rebuilding after wildfire damage, deciding the city will follow FEMA base flood elevation standards rather than impose additional city‑level sea‑level rise mandates.
The council approved language saying replacement beachfront structures "shall be dictated by the FEMA flood plan requirements" and that on‑site wastewater systems and seawalls must meet designs supplied by an applicant's California‑licensed civil engineer experienced in coastal engineering. The design may be submitted either as a coastal engineering or wave uprush report, or as a certified, stamped letter from the applicant's coastal engineer.
The changes stemmed from Issue #10 in the council’s rebuild policy package. City staff framed the approach as preserving federal and state standards while ensuring that designs are prepared or reviewed by credentialed coastal engineers. Staff said the city will not impose additional sea‑level rise requirements beyond what FEMA and applicable law demand, though design professionals may include sea‑level projections in their calculations.
Councilmembers debated wording for more than an hour. Concerned residents and consultants pressed for both clarity and flexibility: some speakers asked for parcel‑by‑parcel waivers to avoid expensive wave uprush studies, while others urged consistent minimum standards. Councilmember Bruce Silverstein proposed changes to tighten drafting (replacing the term “recommendations” with “design”) and to make clear that one of two alternatives—an engineering report or a certified letter—would satisfy documentation requirements; that motion was adopted.
The motion passed on a roll call vote: four yes, one no (Councilmember Conrad). Councilmembers said the decision balances property‑specific engineering needs with a predictable regulatory floor tied to FEMA. Mayor Riggins and several councilmembers reiterated that the policy will be enforced consistently and that staff may return with technical clarifications if needed.
Public comment during the item included concerns from beachfront homeowners about the cost and timing of coastal engineering work and broader criticisms of how quickly rebuilds are proceeding. City staff reiterated ongoing steps to speed rebuild plan checks, including a one‑step portal, templates to reduce corrections, and a dedicated case manager for rebuild homeowners.
The council directed staff to implement the adopted language and carry forward the broader streamlining measures described earlier in the meeting.
