Council and engineers debate self‑certification and geotechnical requirements for coastal rebuilds

City staff, council members and technical commenters discussed the pros and cons of self‑certification for some rebuild elements and the specific geotechnical and coastal engineering documentation the city should require for hazard‑prone sites.

Structural engineer Reg Brown urged the council to require second‑party review on projects within Malibu’s challenging coastal and slope conditions, saying "we need a second set of eyes beyond the design team to certify these projects." Several residents and technical professionals urged clarity about when a limited geotechnical report is acceptable and when a full geotechnical / soils engineering report must be required. Planning staff said they are developing a rubric that will distinguish “limited” versus “comprehensive” geotechnical scopes depending on onsite hazards.

Council members asked staff to survey other jurisdictions that use self‑certification (Bellflower, San Diego and others), evaluate legal and liability implications, and identify audit and enforcement mechanisms that would let the city accept certified work while preserving safety: sample audits, decertification for repeated noncompliance and required professional indemnity. Several council members said they want more information before deciding whether to permit self‑certification in any form; others said the approach merited study if it included strong audit controls.

Staff said they will publish specific guidance and checklists for geotechnical and coastal documents and work to incorporate those lists into the rebuild center’s intake process so applicants know whether a limited report will suffice. No code changes or self‑certification policy was adopted at the session.

Ending: Staff agreed to return with a proposed checklist, examples from other cities, and a risk‑mitigation plan for any self‑certification approach that could include audit triggers and decertification procedures.