By Jo Drummond, Opinion Columnist
Malibu prides itself on resilience, local control, and high safety standards. But more than a year after devastating wildfires destroyed over 600 homes, those values are being tested — not by reckless rebuilding, but by a recovery system that has become stalled by its own processes.
I write this not because I lack a permit — I have one, one of only 29 issued out of more than 200 applications — but because most fire survivors still don’t, and the system is not moving fast enough for them. Families remain stuck paying mortgages, property taxes, and insurance on empty lots, waiting for a recovery that has yet to arrive.
To the city’s credit, there has been an effort to address this. Former Item 8.A — a proposal to facilitate the expeditious, efficient, and economical rebuild of structures destroyed by wildfire — was a thoughtful attempt to clarify how Malibu handles true like-for-like fire rebuilds while preserving safety and local control. Brought forward by then-Mayor Bruce Silverstein and Councilmember Haylynn Conrad, it acknowledged a simple truth: recovery is not the same as new development.
That idea deserves revival — and action.
A federal wake-up call, not a threat
The president’s recent wildfire recovery executive order should be understood for what it is: a wake-up call. It reflects growing federal concern that post-disaster recovery is moving too slowly in many communities, often due to procedural barriers rather than safety issues.
This matters because FEMA reimbursement is increasingly evaluated based on tangible progress — permits issued, construction underway, families returning home. The longer recovery stalls, the more scrutiny builds, and the more risk Malibu assumes with the more than $20 million in federal reimbursement it is seeking.
Most importantly, Malibu should not want its rebuilding dictated from Washington, D.C. The best way to preserve local control is to demonstrate that our city can take recovery seriously, remove unnecessary bottlenecks, and move families home safely and efficiently on our own terms.
Acting decisively to streamline recovery is not about surrendering authority — it is how Malibu protects it.
The real bottleneck: geotechnical review
The single biggest obstacle to rebuilding in Malibu today is geotechnical review, particularly for like-for-like rebuilds on previously developed lots where homes stood safely for decades through storms, earthquakes, and prior fires.
This is not an argument for lowering safety standards or eliminating soils analysis. That would be irresponsible.
What is needed is a prescriptive, standardized pathway, where technically appropriate, that relies on conservative assumptions and the extensive geotechnical data Malibu already has — instead of forcing each rebuild to re-litigate the same conditions again and again.
Prescriptive engineering does not mean “less engineering.” It means more rigor upfront: defining conservative, code-compliant parameters that licensed professionals can design to, while allowing city staff to review projects efficiently and consistently.
Item 8.A creates room for the city to consider whether, in appropriate cases, the building official can rely on standardized, professionally developed criteria, while still requiring full verification and oversight by the applicant’s licensed geotechnical consultant during construction.
Right now, there is no clear or predictable pathway at all — and that uncertainty is what is stalling recovery.
Ironically, prolonged permitting delays are already pushing risk in the wrong direction. The Small Business Administration has warned that if permits are delayed beyond 60 days, contractors or borrowers may self-certify construction — a far less safe outcome than a properly designed prescriptive framework.
Delay has consequences
Item 8.A was voted down earlier this year with the suggestion that it be revisited once the new city manager arrived. That delay has left families in limbo — not because their projects are unsafe, but because staff has not been given clear policy direction.
Former Item 8.A is not a technical mandate; it is a council policy. Its purpose is to give staff clear direction to treat wildfire rebuilds as recovery — not new development — and to use existing discretion under state law to move projects forward safely and efficiently. By not advancing this policy, the city is not preserving safety; it is leaving recovery without a clear framework, which in practice stalls families’ ability to return home both quickly and safely.
Item 8.A does not mandate a single technical solution. It simply affirms three reasonable principles:
- Wildfire rebuilds are recovery, not new development
- Licensed professionals should be deferred to where reasonable
- Discretion should be used to move projects forward when safety is not compromised
That is not radical. It is responsible governance.
A path forward
Malibu has a real opportunity to lead — as communities like Santa Rosa have done — by demonstrating that post-disaster rebuilding can be both rigorous and humane, efficient and safe.
The city already has the data, the professional expertise, and the legal tools needed to move recovery forward. What is needed now is clear direction that aligns policy, staff, and rebuilding families around a shared goal: helping people return home safely and without unnecessary delay.
Acting now allows Malibu to guide its recovery on its own terms, strengthen public trust, and show that local leadership can deliver results when it matters most.
Jo Drummond is a 13-year Big Rock resident and a founding member of the Malibu Rebuild Task Force.