MSN_012419

10 | January 24, 2019 | Malibu surfside news news
malibusurfsidenews.com
Local architects advocate for streamlined rebuilding processes
Barbara Burke
Freelance Reporter
As Malibuites who lost
their homes or businesses
in the Woolsey fire embark
upon the long process of
rebuilding, local architects,
construction contractors
and other building
professionals are advocating
for implementation
of streamlined processes
for obtaining necessary
demolition and building
permits, and for modifications
to the building code
requiring more fire-proof
building designs.
“A team of seasoned
professionals, including
architects, construction
contractors, geologists,
biologists, septic tank designers
and others are galvanizing
to suggest ways
to rebuild Malibu stronger
than ever and to implement
a streamlined way to
run the governmental approval
processes so everyone
is on the same page,”
explained Doug Burdge,
a Malibu-based architect.
“We live here and
we feel that we know the
best way to rebuild Malibu
and to ensure that fire
hazards are kept as low as
possible.”
Before rebuilding can
begin, the EPA and state
agencies must determine
that a property is compliant
with regulations
concerning the removal
of debris and hazardous
materials. After that, one
can apply for a demolition
permit. After successful
demolition, the next step is
to turn to the City to obtain
necessary clearances for
the rebuilding process.
Malibu architect Lester
Tobias, author of “Building
in the Bu: Navigating
the Malibu Zoning Code”
and a fire victim himself,
wholeheartedly agrees
with Burdge with regard
to the need for streamlined
processes to facilitate rebuilding
destroyed structures.
Tobias notes that there
are several ways for the
planning department to approve
a rebuild’s pre-fire
square footage and number
of structures, including using
assessor’s office data,
permit records and pre-fire
surveys by licensed professionals
or post-fire footprint
surveys by licensed
professionals, as-built
plans prepared by licensed
architects or engineers,
and City and County GIS
information and Google
Earth.
Tobias is concerned that
unless the City Council directs
otherwise, the planning
department will rely
on permitting history to
establish an applicant’s
baseline total development
square footage, a process
that could include reviewing
the assessor’s office
information online.
Tobias opined that permitting
history and assessment
data are “the least
accurate means” of establishing
TDSF for homes
built prior to 1991 (when
such activities were under
county purview), or prior
to 1980 (pre-dating the
need for a coastal development
permit). Further, he
notes that TDSF is calculated
differently than the
assessed square footage
for tax purposes.
Therefore, he suggests
that the City implement a
policy providing that if a
rebuild applicant provides
the planning department
with a licensed survey
conducted prior to the fire
or either a post-fire footprint
survey or as-built
floor plans prepared by a
licensed architect and if a
selected methodology is
supported by a superimposed
Google Earth, county
GIS or city GIS website
image, then the TDSF that
is calculated should be
entered as the baseline rebuild
TDSF.
“Fire rebuilds are exempt
from obtaining a
Coastal Development Permit
as long as they are for
the same use, do not exceed
the floor area, height
or bulk of the destroyed
structure by more than 10
percent, and are sited in
the same location on the
affected property as the
destroyed structure,” Tobias
noted, referring to
the City of Malibu’s Local
Coastal Program, Local
Implementation Plan
13.4.6.
The entire LIP can be
read at www.coastal.
ca.gov/ventura/malibu-lipfinal.pdf.
Tobias proposes that
the City Council direct
the planning department
to implement reasonable
guidelines for compliance
with LIP 13.4.6 relative
to the definition of “bulk,”
and “location on the property.”
He maintains that
for rebuilds under the allowable
18-foot height,
bulk should not be a factor
in the rebuild analysis
as it is not a factor in new
construction analysis. For
structures where part of
the project is over 18 feet
in height, he states there
should be some relief for
slight modifications to the
location and size of the
portions that are more than
18 feet, providing that a
homeowner’s proposed
plans do not create a worse
view impact on neighbors.
“The ability to reasonably
relocate a structure
should also be allowed,”
Tobias asserted. “Structures
should be allowed
to be relocated to improve
setback compliance if the
owner so desires [and]
harmless relocations, reorientations,
etc. to take
advantage of environmental
factors should be allowed.”
Burdge said further considerations
should include
placing power lines underground,
removing tall
palm and Eucalyptus trees
in some areas, and more.
“Malibu will rebuild
and we will be so strong
coming out of this
process,” Burdge said.
“To accomplish that, we
need sensible, streamlined
procedures to facilitate
property owners efficiently
and expeditiously
rebuilding their homes and
businesses.”
Business Briefs
Trauma relief workshops
come to Malibu business
Take Care of Yourself
Tuesdays are being offered
now through March 26 at
Glamifornia Style Lounge
in Malibu.
The free, hour-long trauma
relief workshops, led by
the International Association
of Human Values, run from
6:30-7:30 p.m. and aim to
help community members
manage stress and anxiety.
IAHV also plans to offer
deeper, 11-hour sky meditation
workshops at a different
space, with details
yet to be announced.
Glamifornia is located at
21323 Pacific Coast Highway,
#103.
RSVPs are suggested
to Peggy French at relief.
social@iavh.org or (310)
924-8426. For more information
on IAVH, visit
http://us.iavh.org/.
Business Briefs are compiled
by Editor Lauren Coughlin,
lauren@malibusurfsidenews.
com.
Visit us online at MalibuSurfsideNews.com
smmusd
From Page 6
Education Head Start requirements
because of a
five-year decline in local
families who qualify
for Head Start program
enrollment. The LACOE
reapplication requires a
five-year commitment,
with a mandate to maintain
a certain enrollment
number — 112 Head Start
students, ages 3-4, and the
addition of 16 early Head
Start students, ages 0-2.11
years — the district noted
in a press release prior to
the meeting.
The district’s Head Start
program began in 2001,
with 293 eligible students
at time of inception. Today,
the program serves
118 eligible students.
Instead of reapplying for
the grant, the district plans
to create a program to
serve Head Start-qualified
families while also providing
options for all district
families.
SMMUSD states that the
new program will operate
on a multi-tier payment
system, with some families
qualifying for full subsidy,
some partial pay and others
full pay.
The new program is to
continue to serve all current
Head Start-eligible
families, new families
who reside within district
boundaries, and provide
expanded support to other
families in Malibu and
Santa Monica. Services
offered will include health
services, mental health,
special education support
and academic opportunities.
“Early learning experiences
provide the foundation
for a student’s
strength and ultimate success,”
Superintendent Dr.
Ben Drati said in a press
release. “We believe that
all students deserve to be
part of a system that supports
the whole child, including
social, emotional,
academic and physical
considerations.”
Board Member Laurie
Lieberman said the board’s
decision has long-term impacts
as well as serious fiscal
implications.
Lieberman said the decision
is not about turning
away children who would
qualify for Head Start.
“It is about keeping
those kids in our schools
that live here, and providing
them the same things
they would’ve gotten if
they were receiving Head
Start money, but in an inclusive
program with the
rest of the students in this
district who attend our preschools,”
Lieberman said.