I'm fairly sure that Gavin Newsom' dreams of running for President are up in smoke now too.

Today will be crazy with Santa Ana winds.

I’m watching the LA stations while doing PT and the various fire agencies are saying, to paraphrase, “Be ready to evacuate in an instant.”

I’ll say this, too.

Doing knee replacement PT, I’ve watched a boatload of coverage of the folks on the fire lines. Most are Caucasian males, followed by blacks, Latinos, and a sprinkling of Asian males.

I think I’ve seen at most three or four women. I wonder why?

California Coastal Commission approves rebuild despite neighbors’ objections

Applicant waited 12 years for approval to rebuild after home destroyed in 1993 fire

https://malibutimes.com/califo...neighbors-objections

A Malibu homeowner has won approval from the California Coastal Commission to rebuild a Big Rock area home that had previously been destroyed by fire. The CCC voted in favor of the applicant Feb. 7 after hearing comments from the attorney representing the applicant and an attorney representing residents opposed.

CCC staffer Deanna Christensen explained the project, which includes a garage, detached cabana, and new onsite wastewater treatment system, was approved by the city. The site on Inland Lane is in the Big Rock landslide area on a bluff abutting Pacific Coast Highway.

Christensen indicated a dewatering program is in place to maintain groundwater levels. The original home was destroyed in the 1993 Old Topanga Fire. Seven neighbors appealed the project, contending the structure partly embedded underground would decrease stability of the landslide, not minimize risk to life and property, and that a variance to the factor of safety standard of the LCP should not have been granted by the City of Malibu. The appeals also raised concerns about the size and visual impact of the house.

The city’s geotechnical staff concluded there would be minimal risk with the home’s deep pile construction assuring stability within the LCP hazard policy and the commission’s geologist concurred adding the structure’s stability would not adversely impact stability of neighboring structures.

The CCC staffer explained the approved project includes water lines with flexible couplings, gas lines with swing joints, electrical cables with coil loops to protect against breakage, and utility lines in shallow channels for easier repair and inspection. Christensen stated, “The very small increase in subsurface water input would not cause any important threshold relative to groundwater level and slope stability to be exceeded.” The appellants also argued the home’s increased size is larger than adjacent homes therefore blocking ocean views, but private views from neighboring properties are not protected under the city’s LCP.

Attorney Jackson McNeill, representing some Big Rock neighbors asked the commission to consider “the project’s serious geotechnical deficiencies.” He called the city’s geotechnical analysis “woefully lacking. As the Coastal Commission’s staff report notes, the city’s geologist did not perform a seismic slope stability analysis as required by the LIP.” McNeill claimed the last geotechnical investigation was completed in 2011. He requested more time for geological study and commented the home would be over twice the size of the home it replaces. “The largest house in the surrounding landslide area,” McNeill said adding, “This sets a dangerous precedent. Courts have held that variances should be granted rarely. We are talking about a variance from the factor of safety to create the largest house in the neighborhood, on top of a bluff, and on top of an active landslide, all based upon outdated onsite geotechnical investigations that our geologist believes are faulty and incomplete.”

Malibu Township Council President Jo Drummond appealed to the commission, “Developments with septic systems caused the first landslide in Big Rock which is why this is the first hearing you’ve heard for a project here because no new construction has ever been allowed since then.”

Drummond stated the city’s approval of the project was not unanimous at a 2-2 split by the Planning Commission and 3-2 vote by the City Council. She claimed there is water ponding on the lot.

“It’s so dangerous,” neighbor Sabrina Zaretti said. “For public safety please postpone the hearing for necessary geotechnical reports. The proposed build is super unsafe due to so many factors, water seepage, erosion, landslides that are currently happening now in the little rainfall we’ve had. Big Rock is known to have mudslides. It’s going to be a monstrosity of a house. It’s going to be dangerous for people on PCH.”

One last caller named Rosemary chimed in, saying as a 40-year Big Rock resident she has seen numerous landslides. She questioned a proposed seepage pit on the lot. “The whole thing doesn’t make sense,” she said.

The applicant’s representative, Fred Gaines, told the commission the project is consistent and in compliance with Malibu’s certified Local Coastal Program.

The commission unanimously approved the project with Commissioner Dayna Bochco noting the applicant endured 12 years in the process.

The commission also addressed another Malibu issue when it approved changes in the city’s wireless ordinance over the objections of Planning Commissioner Kraig Hill.

quote:

California Coastal Commission approves rebuild despite neighbors’ objections
Applicant waited 12 years for approval to rebuild after home destroyed in 1993 fire

That should never happen.

^^^The wait or the approval?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
California Coastal Commission approves rebuild despite neighbors’ objections

Applicant waited 12 years for approval to rebuild after home destroyed in 1993 fire

Two thoughts come to mind:

NIMBY and FYIGM.

“Not In My Back Yard!” and let’s just go with “Forget You, I Got Mine!”

Many partners in the extended family share ownership of a modest beach cabin on Faria Beach (just west of Ventura). For many generations it has been rented to family members. You don’t always get the time you want, but most of the time you can rent a week each year. Great family time, especially with young kids. Well, a few doors down a doctor bought a lot that consisted of two lots combined by the previous owner. He managed to undo the combination, splitting the lots, then get approval to build two giant houses. I think they are assessed at around $7M each. He sold one and pretty much paid for the other. His house towers over the neighbors, looks into their yards and houses, and the lights he leaves on at night can be annoying. The neighbors all fought him. One neighbor apparently spent $100,000 on the (fruitless) effort. He is widely considered the Antichrist by neighbors. I don’t care for his house and would not have built that way were those my lots, but I guess I have this naive idea that (within some rather broad limits) people should be able to do what they like with their property. If you want to control what happens on a piece of property, you should buy it and pay the taxes on it.

I can’t even rent respect for those who go crying to the government to either stop the neighbor from doing something or force them to do something, then bitch when the government gets in their business.

....and, we're off to the races. Let's rebuild by changing zones and build high-density housing.

No insurance, weak insurance, zero nest-egg to draw from...here's an all-cash offer

BTW- your taxes are due

quote:

“Not In My Back Yard!”

That’s funny because that’s exactly what I thought looking at the house that got built on google maps. It’s the one in the middle with the skinny drive off Inland:

Anyone want to bet the house with the brown roof complained?

The irony is this neighborhood, Big Rock, probably burned so all the complainers get to see what it’s like on the other side.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^The wait or the approval?

Of course, I was talking about the 12 years wait.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
^^^The wait or the approval?

Of course, I was talking about the 12 years wait.

That neighborhood had a landslide in 1983 and the resulting lawsuit by the then 270 home owners was settled with LA County for $97 million, taxpayer funded. A fire in 1993 destroyed 50 homes and of course then there’s the current fire.

I think a strong case can be made for denial of building homes in that area.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

“Not In My Back Yard!”

That’s funny because that’s exactly what I thought looking at the house that got built on google maps. It’s the one in the middle with the skinny drive off Inland:



Anyone want to bet the house with the brown roof complained?

The irony is this neighborhood, Big Rock, probably burned so all the complainers get to see what it’s like on the other side.

According to the Cal Fire map of the Palisades fire, that area in the above picture has indeed all burned...

quote:

I think a strong case can be made for denial of building homes in that area.

I don't know. I'm not arguing for or against approval of any particular project. But if you have a 12 year approval/deny process, that's just absurd. You could make a strong case that it's an unconstitutional taking without compensation.

The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

In understanding the provision, it is helpful to keep in mind the reasons behind it. We agree that the Clause is intended to uphold the principle that the government should not single out isolated individuals to bear excessive burdens, even in support of an important public good. When this happens, the payment of “just compensation” provides a means of removing any special burden. The most influential statement of this principle is found in Armstrong v. United States (1960), where the Supreme Court wrote: “The Fifth Amendment’s [Takings Clause] . . . was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.”

https://constitutioncenter.org...ndment-v/clauses/634

Newsom talks a great show about streamlining the permit process but he has no control over LA County and how they do things.

In the end, there won't be any meaningful time savings and it will cost just as much and talk nearly as long as any other project. All these agencies that have their fingers in everything won't give up the power and their very existence because Newsom wants to look good for 2028.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacramento Johnson:
According to the Cal Fire map of the Palisades fire, that area in the above picture has indeed all burned...

I was able to find the graphic below of the Big Rock Mesa neighborhood. These homes have been inspected: red means destroyed, orange means major damage, yellow means damaged, green is minor damage, while black means no damage.

I grabbed that graphic from: Palisades Fire Damage Map. The map is interactive. If you zoom in and click on individual houses, a pop-up pops up and there's a picture link you can click on to see what the house looks like now. The buildings that don't have houses on them have not been inspected yet.

For example, this is the brown roofed house in the Google maps satellite image I posted above:

May be anecdotal, but today they said on the radio calls are up to FL realtors from CA homeowners affected by the fires.

With the permitting headaches, I’d take my $$ and run.

Someone from Cali will probably buy the house across the street from me that was flooded during Milton and needs $300k of renovations.

Someone knocked over that one planter like the running gag with the lawn jockey in Home Alone.

This was a documentary that the LAFD put out after the 1961 Bel Air fire, which had all the same situation and complications of the Palisades & Sunset Fires, in fact many of the same areas was affected, so this is nothing new.

Some of the major changes was the elimination of combustable roofing shingles but for all the advances in technology and materials, the need to be prepared, clear brush & fuels around properties and better neighborhood planning continue to be an issue.