Malibu council directs staff to send governor request to relax select building‑code requirements to speed wildfire recovery

The Malibu City Council on July 3 directed staff to prepare and send a revised letter to the governor asking that selected building‑code provisions be suspended or relaxed to expedite wildfire recovery. The vote followed a staff presentation and council debate over the letter’s scope and a series of public comments urging broader relief.

Richard, a city staff member, told the council the governor’s office had asked for input on building‑code standards that could be relaxed to speed reconstruction. He said the staff draft focused on two areas: a 2019 requirement that new residential construction include rooftop solar and battery backup, and portions of the 2025 California Building Code the city has not yet implemented. "It would be appropriate to consider postponing the implementation of the 2025 building code because of the cost savings associated with that," Richard said during his presentation.

The council debated whether to limit the request to the "high ticket" items identified by staff or to ask the state more broadly for waivers of non‑safety provisions. One councilmember argued the state should be asked to "waive as many provisions of the building code as can reasonably be waived that don't critically impact safety," a point later incorporated into the revised letter as a narrative amendment.

Public commenters urged the council to press the governor for clearer "grandfathering" rules that would treat pre‑fire conditions as the baseline for rebuilds so setbacks, foundations, septic systems and other preexisting elements could be reused. Remote speaker Joe Drummond said such grandfathering would "lower costs and get people back to normal" by removing barriers for homeowners, while Wade Major asked the council to define exactly what "like‑for‑like" means across different eras of construction.

Councilmembers also discussed process and timing: several asked whether the request from the governor's office imposed a deadline and whether other jurisdictions had already submitted similar requests. Staff said they had received follow‑up questions from a governor’s office staffer and could turn around a revised letter quickly if the council provided direction.

The council ultimately voted to "direct the city manager's office to prepare a revised letter, for your signature," incorporating the suggested language, and authorized that it may be sent without additional review by the full body. The mayor called for the voice vote and the motion carried.

The action is procedural: the council directed staff to prepare and transmit a letter; no code changes were adopted at the July 3 meeting. The council recessed to closed session after taking the vote and later reported no reportable action from closed session.