[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6103010,"mediaKeyId","2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232","parentId",2802453,"title","Residents Urge Sewers, Water Tanks and Compassion in Rebuild Process; Chair Apologizes for Prior Meeting","audioSeconds",1401,"startMs",890000,"endMs",2291000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232&start=890&end=2291","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232/thumbnail_890000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6103010/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Residents-Urge-Sewers-Water-Tanks-and-Compassion-in-Rebuild-Process-Chair-Apologizes-for-Prior-Meeting","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103010-b07af36fca5e04637995d51f782c49b6/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206229&Signature=BGTO0-W7hOH-EZzm-sb--d-RkAHa1zcvViBGKKa9ZDt327IhL~JIx5Acyy6jeh00YeEPFUSDUw8308xJRuUnk02OGrMvVeaTKfiwf95vSgik47~~Vy-KsNsbT8~6J2tUe7XTnuUdY1Zeumw3xVN52qijuIiu6Jqhe~iLAFV6l8BfiMeXv3KZcJEZGgfCthNcZvdhY-LU20JKJo~jsX1yYni7CLQGBHuiSB1KPQv1uQ2tLPMoMgbsksPKlO9uG7n9cjGlI8y5oJojqzScSfIkkmeqmTKacAF7u9rIEkp9qUSowtcq2vLGJ1kPhUuJBcnDYWHgXC0i-MNJxPr9cByAAQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Malibu, CA","date","2025-03-04T16:30:41Z","article","Several residents, design professionals and commissioners used the Planning Commission’s public‑comment period on March 3 to press for broader options in the city’s post‑fire rebuild — including a discussion of sewer systems for Big Rock and clearer paths for private water‑tank approvals — and to raise concerns about the treatment of a resident who had been cut off at the commission’s previous meeting.

“Not putting septic systems back in those areas” was the central pitch from Christopher Ryan Sorensen, a local design professional, who told the commission a sewer system could avoid reinstallation of hundreds of septic systems along PCH and Big Rock and reduce groundwater infiltration into a landslide‑prone area. Sorensen estimated that replacing individual septic systems for many lots could reach “tens of millions” of dollars and described vacuum sewer systems that firms said could be sited along a 3–5 mile stretch in a 6–12 month construction window.

“Sea‑side septic even as good as tertiary systems is right up against the ocean polluting the Santa Monica Bay,” Sorensen said, arguing that a centralized sewer could be technically feasible and could reduce future environmental risks.

Norm Haney, a resident, urged the city and county to maintain infrastructure rather than require private property owners to pay for it. He also suggested the city approve on‑site tanks as a valid source of fire‑suppression water, saying privately stored water (pools or tanks) can protect multiple houses in an immediate area during wildfires. Haney argued the county’s current approach discourages property owners from deploying larger on‑site tanks.

Dina Moore, a physical therapist and resident, and others criticized how the commission handled a public commenter, identified in public remarks as Heather, who lost homes in both the Woolsey and Palisades fires and was not permitted to speak at a prior meeting. Moore described the incident as traumatic and said commission conduct had “seriously shaken” trust among some residents. Chair Hill opened the meeting by apologizing for the prior proceeding and several commissioners echoed apologies and said they had learned from the experience.

Staff responses clarified procedural and jurisdictional limits. Planning staff said adding a new on‑site water tank as part of a rebuild currently qualifies as new development under the local code and therefore requires a coastal development permit (CDP) under the Local Coastal Program (LCP). Staff also said some aspects of water infrastructure are controlled by county or state agencies and ultimately outside the city’s sole authority.

Rebecca (planning staff) and other staff noted the city opened a rebuild center and has published a fire‑rebuild newsletter at maliburebuilds.org; Los Angeles County Fire will participate in the one‑stop shop to help evaluate water tanks and related fire‑safety components per state fire marshal standards. Staff encouraged residents and design professionals to bring sewer or system proposals to the City Council, which has jurisdiction over citywide infrastructure and assessments.

Commissioners and staff also reminded the public that the City Council planned a special council meeting the next day (town‑hall/workshop format) focused on code paths for permitting rebuilds, and that a design‑professionals meeting on zoning text and LCP amendments was scheduled for March 12.

The public‑comment period covered a range of technical, policy and procedural issues — sewer feasibility and financing, responsibility for county infrastructure, the permit path for on‑site tanks, debris clearance timing and administrative handling of public speakers — and commissioners urged staff and the council to pursue practical next steps.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Planning Commission Regular Meeting - March 3, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Design professionals and residents told the Malibu Planning Commission on March 3 that the city should consider centralized sewer options for Big Rock and clarify how private water tanks will be permitted during the post‑fire rebuild; commissioners apologized for how a resident was treated at a prior meeting.","taxTitle","Malibu City, Los Angeles County, California","taxId",70912,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103014,"Planning Commission Approves Vantage Point Terrace CDP with Roof‑deck Lighting Condition",2660,2485000,5145000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232&start=2485&end=5145","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232/thumbnail_2485000.jpg","/articles/6103014/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-Commission-Approves-Vantage-Point-Terrace-CDP-with-Roofdeck-Lighting-Condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103014-08b3c1cc5a94d4372bd6a0429c8c5007/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206229&Signature=S285p-ljIktyrFKqJi59VYw4nv6TVNLNyGDLw9rMw-PlxKY6rwdsSQTvqDOQRuKcy1RJS6n03fHsn9PYvhL5tuWh0yNBVL0jg99hQvCRPFwtSrwUUjIRqhutae7bVY9lgVIxVOV79f088N0Q-MYEb5bFGHcz5Cwy4lfYNDvrREvjMv4WI7kzBf-HRSul2T6KrbMJuldZ2Nsifr1T28Ztk3wXtE3mfXjCdnlTFPkeZUEPh5xwLJB4C71JKTAxswMlWl~6l8PhJkp1YvtqhlJvZbaTWKgZbpCnHKdDpwe8catwxftbaAlZrldEa0qKGWjm8dQRwxJzy2sUSV6MbHzDmQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Malibu Planning Commission on March 3 voted 4–1 to approve Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22‑009 for a new single‑family residence at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, imposing conditions that include mitigation for native trees, limits on rooftop planters and a requirement that roof‑deck lighting be used only when the deck is occupied.

The permit covers a single‑family house of just under 4,000 square feet with an attached garage, a pool and spa, about 3,000 cubic yards of remedial grading and a rooftop deck. During public review neighbors raised privacy and view concerns related to the rooftop deck; the applicant reduced the deck area from the originally proposed size and relocated the stairs to an internal courtyard to address those concerns.

Renika Brooks, planning staff, told commissioners the project is in the Malibu Country Estates overlay and complies with the local coastal program (LCP) development standards, including the 18‑foot maximum height limit used in that overlay. Brooks said the city biologist visited the site and determined that mapped wetlands and stream features in adjacent parcels do not create ESHA (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) constraints on this parcel and that, based on the record, no environmental impact report (EIR) was required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for this project.

The applicant’s representative, Susan Steinberg of Howard Robinson & Associates, said the plan changes were voluntary and intended to reduce impacts to the neighbor directly north of the site. Steinberg said the roof‑deck footprint was reduced roughly 4.5% from the original plan and planters were added along the north and south edges to provide screening.

Steven Weaver, representing the owner of the neighboring property, told the commission the repositioning of the deck was welcome but urged stronger screening. Weaver asked the commission to require planters or a green wall with a minimum height of 8 feet and asked for modest additional setbacks and a reduction in the deck elevation. He said the neighbor’s bedroom and living room face the proposed deck and expressed concern about privacy and the deck’s scale.

The applicant said it would accept a condition limiting planter height (staff had proposed a maximum planter height consistent with the 18‑foot overall height restriction) and indicated willingness to clarify planter materials and heights. Commissioners also questioned fire‑department access around a slope adjacent to the site; staff said the plans were reviewed and stamped by the Los Angeles County Fire Department and that fire access had been approved on the plan set.

Commission discussion touched on consistency with the Malibu Country Estates architectural review board’s prior review, story‑pole placement relative to the slope and whether the reduced roof deck still functioned as a large gathering space. Commissioner comments included a request that roof‑deck exterior lighting comply with the city’s dark‑sky and motion‑sensor rules. The commission added a condition specifying that roof‑deck lighting may be illuminated only when the area is occupied (motion sensors/controls and dark‑sky‑compliant fixtures are required by other conditions in the staff report).

The motion to approve CDP 22‑009 as conditioned passed on roll call: Commissioner Mazza — yes; Vice Chair Peake — yes; Commissioner Leonard — yes; Commissioner Riddick — yes; Chair Hill — no. The staff recommendation (Planning Commission Resolution 25‑02) was adopted with the added roof‑deck lighting language. Staff will return with final permit documents and the conditions must be satisfied before final permits or certificates of occupancy are issued.

Votes at a glance: CDP 22‑009 (24515 Vantage Point Terrace) — approved 4–1 (Hill opposed).","The Malibu Planning Commission on March 3 approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 22‑009 for a new single‑family house at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace with conditions addressing roof‑deck privacy plantings, remedial grading, native‑tree mitigation and a restriction that roof‑deck lighting be used only when the area is occupied. The vote was 4–1.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6103006,"Planning Commission Adopts Rule Change: Commissioner Comments Moved, Three‑Minute Limit Set",1773,5203000,6976000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232&start=5203&end=6976","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2802453-9468560ccd2ef32a822bd7618a96c232/thumbnail_5203000.jpg","/articles/6103006/Malibu-City/Los-Angeles-County/California/Planning-Commission-Adopts-Rule-Change-Commissioner-Comments-Moved-ThreeMinute-Limit-Set","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6103006-56a81217f952b722a5dc1ed578708ad3/orig.mp4?Expires=1771206229&Signature=QVXuTsnMv2GhjMyj4PkUQBnvc8zoT3UyKCKKgunTbaa1Vg6D5ouhHJu6TGkyzOIgL8hjX~znqlziOQZwMY4Xwq3Lf0z8sy9dDn5dV5zrfPl1u4T43~hXz8MqJrFFcYl12KQ8MsQQq3pCDyH3TjM5453KEOXQMeOyegUya5naU5tzL7FHbWGPIU~OQ3V7Wa5VUkZkC2Aj74aAUZKTfTBItpewdm5fE17a48QJ2BknJX3IJiFuPPRL1awPBkjZi3vnxSB-Yi-o3elTb2exTVB2xNPv3ixah~E3on7akCp6V7eZVEMTLzv50P6bs2LQpBsIsWvlK9rzZlA6nNFITLGB0Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Malibu Planning Commission on March 3 adopted a change to its rules of procedure and decorum that moves commissioner and staff comments to the end of the agenda and limits each commissioner’s allotted response during the public‑comment portion to three minutes. The amendment passed 3–2 after a lengthy public discussion and commissioner debate.

The proposal, introduced as an amendment to Planning Commission Resolution No. 2361, was justified by supporters as a way to preserve applicants’ time and city resources and to protect members of the public who attend hearings from lengthy, repeated procedural delays. Commissioner Elizabeth (first name only in the record) and other supporters said advanced structure and time limits would make the commission’s meetings more efficient and user‑friendly for constituents and applicants.

Opponents argued the change would reduce transparency and the commission’s ability to respond promptly to public concerns. Commissioner John (first name only in the record) said he feared moving comments would delay necessary responses to people who traveled to a meeting to speak. Several commissioners and the city attorney noted that Brown Act rules still allow only brief responses to public comment and that any commissioner‑initiated longer discussion can be accomplished by agendizing a future item or by a majority vote to amend the agenda at a meeting.

City attorney (on record as Kellen) advised the commission that the Brown Act permits only brief, clarifying or reactionary replies to public comment during that portion of the meeting and that procedural choices about where to place commissioner comments on the agenda are within the commission’s authority. Commissioners agreed the chair can exercise discretion and the commission can, by majority vote, extend comment time for a particular meeting when warranted.

Roll‑call on the motion produced the following votes: Vice Chair Peake — yes; Commissioner Leonard — yes; Commissioner Mazza — no; Commissioner Riddick — yes; Chair Hill — no. The motion therefore carried 3–2. The commission instructed staff to return with a resolution reflecting the adopted changes and to rescind Resolution No. 2361 accordingly.

Commissioners debated additional implementation details (use of a time clock for commissioners, language tying the three‑minute limit to Brown Act constraints, and whether the chair could move commissioner comments forward by agreement for a specific meeting). The adopted approach allows the commission to amend the agenda or extend time by majority vote as circumstances require.","After extended debate, the Planning Commission voted 3–2 to amend its rules of procedure and decorum to move commissioner and staff comments to the end of the agenda and to limit commissioner comments during the initial public‑comment response to three minutes per commissioner, subject to Brown Act constraints.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Residents Urge Sewers, Water Tanks and Compassion in Rebuild Process; Chair Apologizes for Prior Meeting

Planning Commission Approves Vantage Point Terrace CDP with Roof‑deck Lighting Condition

Planning Commission Adopts Rule Change: Commissioner Comments Moved, Three‑Minute Limit Set