Sen. Ben Allen’s SB 1229 stalls after Malibu fire survivors raise concerns over rebuilding, property values
By The Malibu Times · Sun Aug 16 2026
A California bill that sought to tighten Coastal Act rules for properties sold after being destroyed in future natural disasters will not move forward this year following strong concerns from Malibu fire survivors, rebuilding advocates and local officials about its potential impact on property owners.
Senate Bill 1229, authored by state Sen. Ben Allen, would amend the California Coastal Act’s disaster-replacement exemption by limiting when a new owner of a disaster-damaged property could rebuild without obtaining a coastal development permit.
Allen introduced SB 1229 on Feb. 19. The measure passed the state Senate 29-9 on May 19 before advancing through two Assembly committees. On July 2, it was ordered to a third reading on the Assembly floor, where the official legislative history continues to list it.
Despite that status, Allen has reportedly decided not to move the legislation forward this year after hearing concerns from Malibu residents and representatives involved in the community’s recovery.
The debate over SB 1229 emerged as Malibu and Pacific Palisades continue the lengthy process of recovering from the January 2025 Palisades Fire, which destroyed hundreds of homes in Malibu and thousands across the region.
What SB 1229 Would Change
Under existing California law, a coastal development permit generally is not required to replace a structure destroyed by a disaster if the replacement is for the same use, is located on the same building site and does not exceed the original structure’s floor area, height or bulk by more than 10 percent.
SB 1229 would narrow that exemption in certain circumstances when the person seeking to rebuild was not the property owner of record immediately before the disaster.
The restrictions would apply when a replacement structure could affect protected coastal resources, including public-access easements, open-space easements or deed restrictions, environmentally sensitive habitat areas and buffers, bluff setbacks, state tidelands or submerged and public-trust lands. The legislation also addresses circumstances in which reconstruction could block or impede coastal access in a way that did not exist before the disaster.
Allen described the legislation on the Senate floor in May as preventing use of the disaster rebuilding exemption by a post-disaster buyer when the proposed reconstruction would impinge on coastal access.
The measure was intended to distinguish between homeowners rebuilding after losing their homes and investors or developers who acquire disaster-damaged properties afterward.
The California Coastal Commission supported the legislation. In its legislative report, the commission described SB 1229 as specifying that the Coastal Act's rebuilding exemption would apply to the property owner of record before a disaster, subject to the bill's provisions.
Supporters argued the change would help ensure that future disasters do not create an opportunity for subsequent buyers to use an expedited rebuilding exemption to circumvent longstanding protections for coastal access and environmentally sensitive areas.
Malibu rebuild community raises concerns
In Malibu, however, the legislation generated concerns that went beyond the permitting process.
Fire survivors and rebuilding advocates argued that restricting rebuilding rights when a property changes ownership could make fire-damaged lots less attractive to prospective buyers.
For homeowners unable to rebuild because of insurance shortfalls, construction costs, health issues, financial circumstances or other personal reasons, selling their property may be their only practical path forward. Opponents feared that if prospective purchasers faced additional Coastal Commission review that would not apply to the original homeowner, those buyers could discount the value of the property — or walk away altogether.
That distinction became particularly significant in Malibu, where many residents who lost homes in the Palisades Fire continue to navigate insurance claims, financing, permitting, and sharply increased construction costs.
The concerns centered on whether a policy intended to discourage speculative development could inadvertently penalize the very disaster survivors it was designed to protect.
After coordinated outreach from Malibu fire survivors, the Malibu Rebuild Task Force, city representatives, and members of the Malibu City Council, Allen reportedly decided not to advance SB 1229 during the remainder of the 2026 legislative year.
The decision does not currently appear as a formal withdrawal in the Legislature's public bill history. As of Aug. 11, legislative tracking information continues to show the bill's most recent official action as July 2, when it was read for a second time in the Assembly and ordered to third reading.
An author, however, does not necessarily have to formally withdraw legislation to stop it from advancing. A bill can remain on the legislative file without being brought up for a final floor vote.
Bill advanced before opposition intensified
Before the Malibu concerns gained momentum, SB 1229 had steadily advanced through Sacramento.
The Senate approved the measure 29-9 on May 19. The Assembly Natural Resources Committee subsequently approved it 9-4 on June 8, followed by an 8-3 vote in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on July 1. It was ordered to third reading the following day.
The legislation highlighted a broader question facing California's coastal communities after increasingly destructive wildfires: how to preserve environmental and public-access protections while giving disaster victims the flexibility needed to rebuild, sell or otherwise recover financially.
The Coastal Act generally requires public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline in new coastal development, while providing specific exceptions for qualifying replacement structures.
For Malibu fire survivors, SB 1229 also underscored how rebuilding regulations can affect more than the physical reconstruction of a home. They can influence financing, marketability and the value of a property even when an owner ultimately decides not to rebuild.
Although SB 1229 remains technically active in the Legislature's publicly available tracking information, Allen's reported decision not to pursue an Assembly vote means the proposal is not expected to advance during the remainder of the 2025-26 legislative session.
The issue could return in future legislation, but any new proposal would begin a new legislative process. Allen's current SB 1229 applies prospectively and was not written to change rebuilding rights for homeowners whose properties were destroyed in the 2025 Palisades Fire.
For Malibu residents still recovering from that disaster, the debate has nevertheless served as a reminder that decisions made in Sacramento about future fires can have immediate implications for how property owners evaluate rebuilding, selling and recovery.