Malibu Beachfront Rebuild Updates

On April 15^th, the City of Malibu held a community meeting at the Malibu Rebuild Center, located at 23805 Stuart Ranch Road, Suite 240, that focused on rebuilding beachfront homes damaged or destroyed in the Palisades Fire. This was the second meeting specifically addressing beachfront properties, attended by residents, design professionals and a panel of professionals including city planners, engineers, geologists and Army Corps of Engineers representatives. The meeting covered updates on debris removal, rebuilding policies and technical requirements, with a significant Q&A session addressing resident concerns. Follow this link for the recording on YouTube.

The meeting addressed the following key points:

1. Rebuild Policy Overview
   
   • Rebuild Plus 10% Rule: Homeowners can rebuild their homes to the pre-fire footprint plus an additional 10% in square footage and height, as per Malibu Municipal Code. This additional 10% cannot extend seaward (toward the ocean) to avoid impacting coastal regulations or state lands (1:58:50–2:02:09).
   • Non-Conforming Structures: Existing non-conforming conditions (e.g., setbacks or heights not meeting current codes) can be maintained, but new additions (the 10% increase) must comply with current codes. New non-conforming conditions cannot be created (1:04:39–1:04:51).
   • Six-Year Entitlement Period: Homeowners have six years from the fire (until January 7, 2031) to secure planning entitlements to rebuild to pre-fire conditions, including non-conforming aspects. After six years, properties must comply more closely with current codes (e.g., stricter setbacks). Building permits must be obtained within eight years (1:38:29–1:39:00).
   • State Lands Exemption: Rebuilds within the plus-10% limit do not require a State Lands Commission determination letter, avoiding lengthy processes. Exceeding 10% or building a new triggers a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) and requires state lands review (2:01:38–2:02:09).

2. Debris Removal Policies
   
   • Army Corps of Engineers Role: The Army Corps is managing debris removal for properties that opted in, with a deadline to opt in or out by 11:59 p.m. on the meeting day. Only 10 beachfront properties remained undecided (20:14–20:27).
   • Opt-Out Deadline: Properties opting out of Army Corps debris removal must be cleared by June 30 (21:07–21:22).
   • Scope Limitations: The Army Corps removes fire ash and debris (up to 6 inches deep for safety) but does not remove structures retaining soil (to protect Pacific Coast Highway, PCH) or non-fire-related debris (e.g., cut portions of walls for code upgrades). Caltrans (Caltrans) enforces a blanket policy against removing concrete that could potentially affect PCH stability, causing frustration for some residents due to additional costs (33:38–35:15, 44:12–44:30).
   • Fencing for Safety: Sites with a drop of 2 feet or more after clearance are fenced by the Army Corps to prevent public access and ensure safety (31:38–31:50).
   • Ocean Debris: Debris in the ocean (e.g., bathtubs, beams) is outside the Army Corps’ scope, which ends at the property’s structural footprint. The city is coordinating with state and county agencies to address this, with ongoing discussions at the state level (38:43–39:33).

3. Sea Wall Policies and Procedures
   
   • Requirement for On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (“OWTS”): All beachfront OWTS must have advanced treatment systems per the Local Area Management Plan. If an existing OWTS lacks viable shoreline protection, a sea wall is required. Existing sea walls must be evaluated for code compliance (engineered and permitted) and may need repair, rebuilding, or replacement (26:18–27:17).
   • Existing Sea Walls: If a sea wall is structurally sound, meets current code requirements, and adequately protects the OWTS, no new wall is needed, and a coastal engineering study may not be required. Homeowners must provide as-builts and structural reports to avoid unnecessary rebuilding. For example, a homeowner with a less-than-10-year-old advanced OWTS behind a sound sea wall near PCH was advised they likely don’t need a new study or wall (1:43:28–1:43:47; 1:53:31–1:56:07).
   • Proposed Second Sea Walls: Some properties, like those on Las Flores Beach with a 1983 sea wall, may need a second sea wall behind the existing one if it’s not high or deep enough to protect a new OWTS. This depends on structural evaluations and base flood elevation (BFE) requirements. Discussions with planning and building officials are needed for multi-parcel coordination (1:39:34–1:45:03).
   • Structural Evaluation: Homeowners must hire structural engineers with marine experience, coastal engineers, and geotechnical engineers to assess sea walls. An as-built drawing and structural evaluation against current codes are necessary to determine if the wall is sufficient or needs modification (1:43:28–1:43:47).
   • Evaluation and Compliance: Sea walls must be structurally evaluated against current codes. A 1983 sea wall on Las Flores Beach, for example, may need a second wall if it’s not high or deep enough to protect a new OWTS, depending on BFE and structural assessments (1:39:34–1:43:02).
   • Coastal Commission: Existing sea walls (e.g., 1983 Las Flores) involved Coastal Commission agreements (e.g., public amenities). Modifications or new walls may require commission review unless grandfathered under fire rebuild entitlements (1:42:26–1:42:37).
   • Cost and Placement Considerations: Sea walls cost $8,000–$10,000 per linear foot, with costs increasing the closer they are to the ocean due to longer return walls. Moving OWTS landward (toward PCH) can save $16,000 per foot by shortening, outweighing the cost of relocating a leach field, a critical consideration for underinsured homeowners (1:31:45–1:32:33).
   • Continuous Group Sea Wall Proposal: Residents and architects proposed a continuous sea wall to support PCH and reduce individual costs (estimated at $400,000–$500,000 per property). This requires regional funding and Caltrans involvement, as PCH is a state highway with federal interest. The absence of Caltrans representatives at the meeting was noted and the city was asked to facilitate coordination, with further discussion planned for April 24th  (1:24:47–1:25:13).
   • Beach Access Stairs: Adding stairs to a sea wall for beach access is allowed if designed within the existing property footprint and not projecting further seaward. Stairs must be breakaway, retractable, or fixed per FEMA flood zone requirements. A new sea wall solely for stairs is unlikely unless recommended by a coastal engineer (1:56:36–1:59:19).

4. On-Site Wastewater Treatment Systems (OWTS)
   
   • Advanced Systems Requirement: All beachfront OWTS must use advanced treatment systems. Approximately 60 homes already have these systems (26:18–26:36).
   • Shared Systems Proposal: A suggestion was made to allow shared OWTS across property lines without a conditional use permit (CUP), which currently requires both lots to be owned by the same owner or tied together. This could reduce costs and sea wall needs but requires a code amendment, to be discussed by the City Council (58:03–1:00:47).
   • Pumping and Abandonment: For opt-out properties, pre-construction meetings ensure OWTS are pumped before debris removal. For opt-in properties, the Army Corps does not pump systems, but the city is monitoring and has issued permits for abandoning damaged systems. Homeowners reported open septic systems flooding with sand, requiring individual action to pump and cap (1:59:43–2:01:22).

5. FEMA and Flood Zone Requirements
   
   • Base Flood Elevation (“BFE”): Structures, including utilities, must be above the BFE. Garages below BFE may be allowed with flood vents and utilities above BFE, but this is case-specific and requires FEMA consultation. Frangible slabs (designed to break away in floods) are an option but challenging in earthquake zones (1:46:22–1:49:28).
   • Elevated Structures: Homes must be elevated to meet FEMA requirements, impacting access (e.g., ramps or stairs). Ramps are allowed if they don’t block view corridors or violate setbacks, but height and design must comply with codes (1:01:18–1:02:07).
   • Detached Garages: Non-habitable detached garages in a Coastal High Hazard Areas with velocity wave action and a specified BFE,  (or “V-zones,” labeled “VE” on newer FEMA maps or “V” on older FEMA maps), must meet BFE requirements for the lowest horizontal structural member unless designed to break away or moved out of the V-zone. FEMA is reviewing case-specific exemptions (1:34:46–1:37:34).

6. Coastal and Geotechnical Guidelines
   
   • Guideline Release: Coastal engineering and geotechnical guidelines were finalized and expected to be available by Friday of the meeting week but got delayed to incorporate community feedback from multiple meetings (1:18:44–1:22:17).
   • Combined Reviews: The city combines geotechnical and coastal engineering reviews during plan checks to streamline the process, reducing wait times for interdependent approvals (27:46–27:53).

7. View Corridors and PCH Impacts
   
   • Preserving Views: Homes in areas like La Costa or Carbon Beach must prioritize lateral movement (side-to-side) before increasing height to avoid blocking views from PCH-adjacent properties. If views are not impacted, this rule does not apply (24:05–24:46).
   • PCH Retaining Walls: Concerns about crumbling PCH retaining walls were raised, with Caltrans responsible for reinforcement. The city is coordinating with Caltrans and LA County Public Works, aiming for a plan before PCH reopens by May’s end (40:14–41:56).

8. Proposed Policy Changes
   
   • Self-Certification: A suggestion to allow architects and engineers to self-certify projects, as recommended by LA’s recovery officer, will be discussed at the April 24th City Council meeting (55:04–55:46).
   • Group Efforts: Proposals for group foundations, sea walls, and septic systems to achieve economies of scale were raised, requiring City Council direction. The city was urged to facilitate coordination among homeowners, possibly through additional meetings, without violating privacy laws (1:25:25–1:30:55).
   • Policy Document: A forthcoming planning policy document will address issues like basement exemptions, height allowances beyond 10% for FEMA compliance, and other code interpretations. It will be presented at a future special City Council meeting, with public input welcomed (1:13:24–1:14:44).

9. Pacific Coast Highway (“PCH”) Reinforcement and Caltrans Involvement
   
   • Caltrans Oversight: Caltrans’ blanket policy against removing concrete near PCH complicates debris removal, increasing costs for homeowners. A meeting with Caltrans was scheduled for the next day to address specific cases (35:04–35:21).
   • PCH Stability: Proposals for a continuous platform or sea wall to reinforce PCH require Caltrans funding and approval, as PCH is a state scenic corridor under the Coastal Act (1:24:47–1:25:13, 1:52:06–1:52:18).
   • Storm Drains: Unmaintained storm drains under PCH, some damaged or allowing unauthorized access, need Caltrans attention. The city was asked to coordinate with Caltrans on maintenance (1:51:35–1:51:57).
   • Projected PCH Reopening: The Army Corps of Engineers, in coordination with the governor’s request, aims to clear all debris from PCH-adjacent beachfront properties by the end of May to facilitate the reopening of additional lanes on PCH (23:08–23:20).

10. Other Procedural Notes
    
    • Rebuild Center: The Malibu Rebuild Center has assisted 197 families, offering resources for planning and permitting. It encourages group investigations among neighbors to reduce costs (28:08–28:29).
    • Evidence for Rebuilds: For properties lacking full plans, homeowners can use photographs, Google Earth, assessor records, or other evidence to establish pre-fire square footage and massing. Comprehensive packages expedite the process (1:10:38–1:11:55).
    • Fee Waivers: A fee waiver program for fire-affected owners is under consideration but applies only to owners at the time of the fire, not future owners (1:09:06–1:09:12).
    • Beach Nourishment: Post-fire sediment from heavy rains could naturally replenish beaches, reducing sea wall needs. The city was urged to redirect debris (e.g., from Los Flores Creek) to the ocean rather than landfills to support beach restoration (1:33:06–1:34:26).

In Summary

The meeting highlighted the complexities for rebuilds in Malibu, with sea walls being a central concern due to their cost, structural requirements, and impact on OWTS protection. Homeowners have six years to secure entitlements, with a plus-10% rebuild allowance that avoids state lands issues if kept within limits. Debris removal is nearing completion, but Caltrans’ restrictions create challenges. Proposals for shared OWTS, continuous sea walls, and group foundations aim to reduce costs but require City Council approval and coordination with Caltrans. The city is finalizing coastal and geotechnical guidelines and encourages residents to use the Rebuild Center and engage design professionals. Upcoming meetings, particularly on April 24th, will address septic systems, self-certification, and policy amendments to streamline the rebuild process.

G10 Law APC is a full-service real estate, coastal properties, business & banking law firm based in Carlsbad, CA and Santa Monica, CA.  If you have any questions, please contact our website at www.g10law.com  or call us at 760-431-4575.