City outlines ‘streamlined’ rebuilding procedures, but residents express concerns over complexity and delays
The City of Malibu’s March 12 Town Hall for design professionals provided an overview of rebuilding procedures for homes destroyed in the Palisades Fire. City Hall’s large auditorium was almost filled to capacity as attendees listened to the city’s staff and contracted design professionals’ presentations outlining various rebuilding options and processes that the city characterized as “streamlined procedures.”
Although most in attendance later stated that they think the city and its consultants mean well and want to expedite rebuilding, many audience members walked away frustrated and concerned that the rebuilding process would be arduous and protracted, perhaps even worse than fire victims’ experiences after the Woolsey Fire.
First, the city reviewed Gov. Gavin Newsom’s executive order focusing on streamlining rebuilding and suspending permitting and review requirements under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the California Coastal Act. The city noted that the gubernatorial order also provides tax relief to fire victims, addresses mobilizing debris removal and cleanup, protects victims from real estate speculators and safeguards survivors from price gouging.
The debris removal process and considerations relating to foundations
Yolanda Bundy, environmental services director and building official for the city, stated that phase 1 of hazardous waste removal, managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, is “currently underway and almost complete,” as are debris removal efforts managed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
The city addressed the process for fire victims who choose to opt out of the government’s debris removal, noting that private contractors will be required “to schedule a pre-construction site visit with a city inspector to ensure the safety of residents and to safeguard properties prior to starting debris removal.”
After privately funded debris removal is completed, a property owner must provide weight tickets or disposal documents from a certified landfill, an explanation of any hazardous waste removed, site photos for the completed site showing the frontage of the property that faces a highway or street, photos of the building’s footprint, of un-removed foundations if applicable, as well as of property lines and remaining structures. Final steps for the privately funded debris removal process include obtaining city inspector verification documenting debris removal and then obtaining final debris removal approval from the county.
The presentation informed that the Corps’ goal for all 13,579 properties destroyed in the Palisades and Eaton fires is Jan. 6, 2026. As of now, the Corps has received 3,770 right of entrance authorizations from homeowners and has all of those “in progress,” using its 121 teams in the Palisades and Eaton fires. A total of 248 lots have been processed completely, according to the Corps. City staff noted it is not the Corps’ goal to remove seawalls or septic tanks. Homeowners are advised to provide a drawing indicating where those are located and the Corps will make a conscious effort not to damage them. Bundy noted that in Malibu, 147 owners of beach lots have opted in, 34 have opted out and 141 owners have not decided how to proceed. Bundy said her staff are contacting the 141 undecided owners, adding that, “it is safe to say that you are opting in and then you can decide to opt out later.”
Foundations
Bundy briefly discussed the effects of fire on concrete foundations, noting that concrete’s structural integrity can be significantly compromised. At temperatures above 300 F, concrete begins to lose strength and when temperatures reach 1,100 F, concrete can lose 50% or more of its original strength, making it structurally unreliable. Further, when exposed to intense heat, moisture trapped within the concrete expands, causing the surface to crack and break off chunks in a process known as spalling. Finally, Bundy noted that the reinforcing steel within concrete is also vulnerable to extreme heat causing loss of strength and elasticity, thermal expansion of steel and loss of strength between the rebar and the surrounding concrete, reducing the foundation’s stability.
Rules for those choosing to retain their foundation
For those residents choosing to retain their foundations, the building permit process for new structures includes obtaining approval from a city building official.
“There are two mandatory steps before potentially reusing a foundation: a feasibility study and a plan review process to ensure that a foundation meets the minimum code requirements in the current Los Angeles County and California codes,” Bundy said. “The California licensed professional of record must provide details, calculations, and a repairs narrative necessary for proof that the foundation meets minimum current code requirements for the plan review process and the foundation shall also meet minimum requirements and recommendations by a California licensed geotechnical engineer in a soils report or an update letter.”
Bundy emphasized that, “Submittal of the feasibility report or the city’s acceptance of the report does not guarantee that the foundation may be used in the rebuilding process. Rather, the acceptance of the report allows for building plans to be submitted for plan review and during that process, the foundation may be deemed unacceptable for reuse.”
Tyler Eaton, principal planner for the city, explained that the feasibility report concerning the viability of a foundation must be prepared by a California licensed civil engineer or structural engineer who has performed a core sampling test, tensile testing and a “Schmidt Hammer test” that addresses the uniformity of the concrete and delineates any variations in its structure. Finally, he noted that the consultants must provide a soil contamination report confirming that the site is free of contamination and hazardous materials.
Temporary housing protocols
The city’s presentation also outlined protocols for residents having temporary housing on their parcels while they rebuild.
“Those rebuilding can have two homes on their property that do not total 1,000 square feet and they can obtain a permit for up to four years and, if necessary, they can obtain up to two, 1-year permit extensions.” Eaton said. “The temporary housing must have electrical service and no temporary power poles are allowed and it must be served by a working septic system.”
Building plan check standards
The planning verification process was discussed at length by Bundy and Eaton who outlined the documentation required for building like for like and up to 10 percent beyond the original structure’s size and configuration. Eaton noted that an addition of up to 10 percent must comply with all current city codes and standards. “We will perform a conformance review within seven to 10 days and inform applications about any missing information or revisions that are required.” Eaton avered.
Eaton and several city consultants discussed at length the fact that both administrative plan and site plan reviews may be needed for proposed rebuilt structures with a new height above 18 feet and they noted that applicants can also expand any destroyed accessory structures by 10% each.
“The expansion of 10% is only allowed if the new area meets development standards and it cannot expand any nonconformities.” Bundy noted. “The property must be under the maximum total development square footage and must be impermeable.”
Building plan check protocols
The meeting continued, ultimately totalling more than four hours in length, during which intermittent stress-induced sighs were uttered by several attendees as the city explained relevant details and document submittals required before a resident can move into his rebuilt home. After a list of elements of the building plans review was presented setting forth documents required for submittal and supporting documentation, some residents stated they were overwhelmed and some design professionals opined that the city was not “streamlining” the rebuilding process as promised.
Those expressing concerns and frustrations noted that the process requires architectural plans; site surveys; energy calculations; mechanical, electrical, plumbing and structural plans; foundation and framing plans and accompanying detail sheets; civil plans addressing grading and drainage; site retaining wall sheets; landscape-irrigation and outdoor lighting plans documenting compliance with the Dark Sky Ordinance; and documents demonstrating that the Los Angeles County Fire Department has approved plans relating to grading, access and fuel modification. The protocols also mandate the submission of a certified fixture unit worksheet and an onsite wastewater treatment plot plan supported by an Onsite Water Treatment Systems Fire Damage assessment form. Structural calculations, a foundation feasibility report, geotechnical and/or geology reports, coastal engineering reports and approval listings — all must be included.
Whew! But wait, there was more presented concerning rebuilding requirements, including a discussion of how to submit forms documenting compliance with the 2022 Energy Code’s goals aimed at increasing building energy efficiency and contributing to the California greenhouse gas reduction goals, followed by explaining details relating to compliance with electrical, mechanical and plumbing codes as well as the proper distribution of fire sprinklers. The plumbing standards are set forth in the Malibu Municipal Code, the city’s Local Agency Management Plan and its Onsite Water Treatment Systems Manual as well as in the Los Angeles County and California Plumbing Codes.
Onsite wastewater treatment systems
One hotly contested topic pertaining to the rebuilds is whether fire victims must install a new onsite wastewater treatment system or can reuse their existing OWTS. If they choose to pursue the latter option, they must: 1) submit an OWTS Fire Damage Assessment Form; 2) complete any repairs before they receive a certificate of occupancy; 3) provide the city with a site plan indicating the location of the OWTS and all accompanying structures; 4) complete floor plans; and 5) submit a fixture unit worksheet.
“Advanced OWTS with supplemental treatment is required for residential beachfront, commercial and multi-family properties pursuant to MMC 15.40.090,” Eaton explained.
Coastal lots’ special challenges
Key coastal design considerations discussed include FEMA Base Elevation standards versus wave uprush studies establishing elevations. Coastal engineering reports will be necessary and, according to Eaton and some consultants, wave uprush studies will likely govern shoreline protection issues.
Existing seawalls present some concerns and structural evaluations may likely conclude that some modifications are needed. Bundy noted that most existing sewalls are too low and they present elevation issues caused by climate change. Should the residents want to build community seawalls, then standards need to be developed, she added. Beach lots also may have remnants of structures such as revetments, storm drains on Pacific Coast Highway and structural supports of PCH road embankments, she noted.
After the meeting, Carl Randall, whose family has lived on Las Flores Beach for 60 years, discussed some of the requirements set forth by the city officials and consultants at the meeting concerning beachfront lots. Randall is helping to spearhead efforts to streamline rebuilding efficiently, safely, and expeditiously on beach lots.
“My current understanding is that the city’s stance is that all homes on the coast must put in a new septic system and I would note that many of us have high-functioning septic systems and should not have to do so.” Randall said. “I would request that the city provide us with options — although I may decide to put in a new system, I would like the choice to not do so.”
A word from the Fire Department and new building laws
Chief Nick Duvally of the Los Angeles County Fire Department provided a brief overview concerning occupancy approval, protocols for ensuring that there is enough access for firefighters and their trucks and fire sprinklers installation.
Bundy and other officials told design professionals that all new rebuilds must comply with California’s newly adopted 2024 International Wildland-Urban Interface Code which enhances fire resilience building standards, addresses defensible space and provides standards for emergency access, water supply and fire protection.
Another newly adopted law, the 2025 Building Energy Efficiency Standards provision, addresses updated building standards expanding requirements for heat pumps and electric-ready buildings.
The city’s new rebuild center
“We encourage design professionals and residents to visit our new rebuild center, which is just across from City Hall at 23805 Stuart Ranch Road, Suite 240,” Bundy announced. “Our teams are there to meet with you and assist you. It’s best to make an appointment, but walk-ins are also welcome.” The center opened on March 10 and as of the May 12 meeting, staff had assisted 33 applicants and homeowners. The center is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Monday through Friday. Readers can call the center at (310) 456-2489, ext. 400.
Bundy noted that both design professionals and residents can go online to request assistance with the rebuild process, initiate planning applications, apply online for a new, revised submittal or substantial conformance application and initiate a permit or plan check application. One can also schedule inspections and check the status of pending or completed inspections as well. Finally, residents and design professionals can also view open code enforcement cases by searching with property addresses.
BlueBeam and the city’s streamlined plan review commitments
Bundy briefly provided an overview of the city’s newly offered BlueBeam™ Studio Sessions that allow for digital collaborative plan check review sessions involving the city’s staff and consultants, design professionals and owners.
With regard to the city’s commitment to streamline plan check intakes, Eaton and Bundy stated that a plan check engineer will provide preliminary plan check reviews, generating a checklist for submittal requirements.
“The initial plan review will take 10 business days.” Eaton stated. “If there is a need for further information, recheck reviews will be completed in five to seven days after all the required information is provided.”
Attendees’ responses to the city’s new permitting requirements
“The meeting provided an opportunity for the building and safety staff to tell everyone what requirements they have REMOVED to make our rebuilds easier.” said Jo Drummond, who lost her home in Big Rock. “They did the OPPOSITE of that, in fact, adding more roadblocks. For example, I asked about geo requirements for anything 10% and below but was answered with codes that are only NORMALLY required when you apply for a variance for anything ABOVE 10%. Another example: the city is choosing to NOT follow plumbing codes on water flow and fixture counts to make it PROHIBITIVE when it’s legally allowed.”
Continuing, Drummond stated, “They are interpreting rebuilds as NEW construction and we are NOT. If they can re-interpret the code then so can the City Council.”
Addressing the residents’ desires, Drummond stated, “We expect with City Council’s guidance that these codes will be interpreted in the most lenient way possible, instead of the time consuming and costly way it was presented at the meeting. We suggest working with the building professionals and residents to get to a workable place.”
Architect Lester Tobias characterized the city’s mandates as “draconian requirements” that will “have major negative impacts on Malibu.” He opined that it is “pretty clear that across the board the city will be requiring the most costly, complicated, and time consuming requirement on any aspect of the rebuilds.”
Addressing the impacts of the city’s positions, he predicted that city officials “have “added at least one year to the rebuilding process,” and “have increased the number of people that will sell and leave by 50%.” In essence, he stated, the city has “opened the door to developers.”
Chiming in, Abe Roy, a contractor and a Big Rock resident, stated that “from a builder’s perspective, electrical and plumbing etc. all adapt to the framing when it’s complete … the plans upfront change 99% of the time and they are all verified to code by the building inspector. LA doesn’t require this even for the mega mansions.”
Continuing, Roy expressed further frustration, saying, “We are adding cost and delay. Homeowners are already submitting their plans, realizing they have little choice but to comply and they are starting to spend money on all these redundancies. They will have so little left to build with. I am just distraught!”
Agreeing, Drummond warned that the rebuilding process after the Palisades Fire will be an even worse experience for fire victims than that experienced after Woolsey.
The City of Malibu has several meetings scheduled in upcoming weeks:
March 25: Big Rock, Calle de Barco Assessment Districts
April 1: Rambla Pacifico, La Costa, Las Flores, Pena Road, 20717 to 20759 PCH
April 8: Carbon Canyon, Carbon Mesa, Carbon Beach Terrace
April 15: Beachfront Properties
April 22: Broad and Franklin Fire Code Amendments.