Zoning changes and building height adjustments debated to accelerate rebuilding while balancing long-term goals
Last week, Malibu’s City Council held extended continuation meetings to discuss crucial updates to the city’s planning regulations in response to the recent fires. These lengthy sessions, lasting several hours, focused on refining building codes and zoning laws, particularly in relation to fire rebuilds. The meetings also aimed to capitalize on a specialopportunity created by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s suspension of certain Coastal Commission regulations in fire-impacted areas. This suspension allowed Malibu to expedite the rebuilding process in ways that would not have been feasible under normal conditions.
A significant focal point of this discussion was the potential for new building height allowances along Malibu’soceanfront, particularly in areas like La Costa Beach, where homes destroyed by the fires could be rebuilt taller than current height restrictions permit. The issue of height was not the only contentious subject; another central question revolved around the speed at which these changes should be implemented. Should the city expedite these adjustments to take full advantage of the governor’s order, or should it proceed with more caution and deliberation, ensuring that long-term goals are balanced with immediate needs?
Councilmember Bruce Silverstein voiced strong concerns about rushing to approve the changes, emphasizing that the governor’s executive order — temporarily removing the Coastal Commission from the permitting process — might render the need for quick approvals unnecessary. He argued that the order gave the city ample time to make adjustments without feeling pressured to adopt wholesale changes that might not align with the city’s broader vision for rebuilding.
“I don’t understand what the rush to get to Coastal is,” Silverstein remarked during the meeting. “Because the governor’s order has wiped out Coastal. We have some minimal things we probably need to do under the municipal code, to get you all functioning under the governor’s order so that the city is in line with the state. All the other stuff we’re doing is for Woolsey, Franklin, Broad, and the future.”
Silverstein’s skepticism about the speed of the process was in contrast to the views of Councilmember Marianne Riggins, who believed that it was essential for the city to make rapid changes. Riggins pointed out that while the Palisades Fire was the largest of the recent fires, there were other fire victims, particularly those affected by the Franklin and Broad fires, who could also benefit from the proposed changes to zoning rules.
“Even though the Palisades Fire is the largest, the Franklin Fire happened a month before, and these local coastal program changes are for their benefit,” Riggins noted. “Not to mention, we have Woolsey Fire rebuilds that are being held up and could benefit from streamlining so we can get those people back in their homes.”
The tension between urgency and caution set the tone for much of the debate that followed. City officials and council members tried to reconcile their differing perspectives, as they balanced immediate needs for fire victims with the longer-term vision for Malibu’s urban development.
Height restrictions and FEMA guidelines
One of the most contentious issues discussed during the meeting was the height of replacement homes along PacificCoast Highway. FEMA flood maps dictate that beachfront homes must meet new baseline floor elevations, sometimes requiring homes to be elevated by up to 8 feet. This increase in height could push homes above the current 28-foot height limit for oceanfront properties, which has the potential to block or obstruct views for residents living inland, especially for those along PCH.
Former Councilmember Paul Grisanti raised concerns about the accuracy of FEMA’s flood zone studies, particularly criticizing the wave uprush study, which he argued relied on flawed assumptions and could lead to elevated homes that were unnecessarily high. While Grisanti’s concerns were taken seriously, city staff emphasized that Malibu is required to comply with FEMA’s guidelines, which could result in the construction of taller homes and the loss of scenic views along PCH. The council was forced to address this issue head-on, as balancing safety and environmental regulations with maintaining Malibu’s aesthetic appeal has always been a delicate task.
City planner Tyler Eaton proposed a potential compromise to help minimize the impact on neighboring properties. Eaton suggested that elevation increases could be accommodated but recommended that homebuilders first increase the floor area laterally — i.e., by expanding outward — before pursuing vertical growth. The goal of this approach was to allow homes to meet FEMA’s flood zone requirements without unnecessarily blocking views or disrupting the character of the community.
Riggins also suggested another solution: allowing replacement homes to be built on top of the FEMA-required platforms and to expand by up to 10% in total size. However, she proposed that this increase should be allowed only if the previous home had already exceeded the 28-foot height limit. This recommendation aimed to maintain a degree ofconsistency in the height of replacement homes, especially in areas where homes had already violated the original zoning regulations.
Removing temporary housing
Another significant topic discussed was the removal of temporary housing structures — specifically mobile homes — that had been placed on lots where homes were destroyed by the fires. These temporary units had been allowed by the city as part of the recovery process, but some of them had remained in place for years, well beyond their intended use.As a result, the City Council grew frustrated with the ongoing presence of these structures and discussed implementing stricter timelines and enforceable penalties to ensure their removal.
One council member referred to the continued presence of these temporary housing units as “shenanigans,” underscoring the growing frustration with the lack of progress on rebuilding. The council resolved to adopt measures that would impose clear timelines for the removal of temporary housing, with penalties for noncompliance, aiming to encourage residents to rebuild their homes and return to permanent housing as soon as possible.
Auxiliary dwelling units
A final issue that garnered attention was a proposed amendment to the city’s regulations regarding auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs). These are small, secondary units that can be built on single-family lots, and the city had previously imposed a ban on such units in certain areas, including those with only one access route to Pacific Coast Highway. The council debated whether to lift this ban, particularly in areas like Big Rock, where there is a growing demand for ADUs as a way to provide additional housing.
Councilmember Steve Uhring expressed opposition to the idea, citing concerns about safety and access in the event of an emergency. Uhring’s concerns were rooted in the fact that homes in these areas often had limited access to the highway, which could complicate evacuation efforts during fires or other emergencies. After a lengthy discussion, the council ultimately voted to maintain the existing restrictions on ADUs in these areas.
Progress toward a solution
As the city continues to navigate these complex issues, a major development came with the announcement that the City Council would vote on the proposed changes to its zoning and planning rules during a special meeting scheduled for March 13. This meeting will be a critical step in finalizing the changes that are intended to streamline the rebuilding process for fire victims and facilitate future development.
Once the council has voted on the proposed changes, they will be sent to the California Coastal Commission for approval. The commission will consider the new rules during its meeting scheduled for April 9-11. This process represents the most significant update to the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) in over two decades, and its approval will be crucial to the city’s recovery efforts and future development plans.
Skatepark approval and staff recognition
Amidst the intense deliberations on fire recovery and rebuilding, the council also took time to approve a long-awaited project: the Malibu Skatepark. This project, which had been in the works since 2019, was finally given the green light during the City Council meeting. The skatepark will be located on the Crummer/Case property adjacent to Malibu Bluffs Park and is expected to provide a much-needed recreational space for Malibu’s youth. The park’s design will feature a permanent 12,500-square-foot facility that will offer a variety of amenities for skateboarders and other outdoor enthusiasts.
Additionally, the City Council took time to recognize the contributions of two key members of its Planning Department: Renika Brooks and Tyler Eaton. Both have played instrumental roles in shaping the city’s planning policies and responses to the recent fires. Renika, who was recently promoted to principal planner, has been involved in various key projects, including the recovery efforts following the Woolsey, Franklin, and Palisades fires. Eaton, who was promoted to principal planner in 2024, has worked on the city’s housing element certification and fire rebuild code amendments. Both were praised for their leadership and dedication to Malibu’s planning needs.
As Malibu moves forward with these proposed changes to its building codes and coastal regulations, the City Council faces the challenge of balancing fire recovery with the long-term sustainability and livability of the city. While the changes are expected to provide immediate relief to fire victims, the broader impacts on the city’s growth and development will take years to fully unfold. Whether these changes will help Malibu build back better — or whether they could potentially lead to increased development that may alter the character of the city — remains to be seen.