Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Permitting Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Self‑certification for rebuilds divides council; no formal action taken
Summary
Staff presented possible self‑certification approaches used in other jurisdictions and outlined risks and limits. Council members, staff and the public were sharply divided; no formal council adoption occurred, and staff said a formal proposal could be brought back for council consideration if directed.
City staff presented information on self‑certification programs used elsewhere and outlined potential benefits and risks for Malibu’s fire rebuilds. The discussion produced no formal vote; council members were split and several asked staff to return with a formal proposal if the council wished to proceed.
What staff presented
Yolanda summarized examples from other jurisdictions, noting New York City, San Diego County and Bellflower have self‑certification programs of varying scope. She explained the program variants she reviewed generally preserve required agency approvals (planning, fire, environmental health) and still require inspections; where audits later find noncompliance, projects can be required to return to the city for review. In her summary she emphasized the technical and insurance risks tied to moving some plan‑review responsibilities from city staff to private certifiers.
Public and council comments
Speakers from the public and several council members offered contrasting views: some residents and designers said self‑certification could save time for homeowners and noted other jurisdictions use it; others warned of increased risk and cited examples of post‑self‑certification rescinds in other cities. One council member said the city’s existing staff and review process are doing essential life‑safety work and cautioned against removing that second set of review. Another pointed out some programs limit self‑certification to flat areas and exclude hillside or coastal hazard zones.
Council action or follow‑up
There was no formal motion to adopt a self‑certification program at the April 23 session. A straw poll recorded several council members opposed, some undecided and at least one supportive voice. Staff told the council that directing staff to draft a formal self‑certification proposal for council consideration would be an appropriate next step; the council did not adopt that direction at the meeting but discussed placing a proposal on a future agenda.
Why it matters
Self‑certification changes which parties carry upfront plan‑review responsibility and shifts some risk to project certifiers and property owners. Proponents argue it can reduce approval time; opponents warn it can increase the risk of unsafe or noncompliant construction and of later costly corrections that affect neighbors.
Ending
No self‑certification program was adopted. Council members and staff agreed further discussion is warranted; placing a detailed staff proposal on a future agenda remained an option for council members to pursue.
