Plansplainer

a black and white drawing of a man with a beard and the words `` it 's over '' behind him . ALT: a black and white drawing of a man with a beard and the words `` it 's over '' behind him .

Guys… something happened, and I put all of my money on “Nothing ever happens”.

#CEQA

YouTube video by Plansplainer Plansplaining: AB-98 (Reyes)

Most up to date version (oops): youtu.be/TkDyEmIIfHE

YouTube video by Plansplainer Plansplaining: AB-98 (Reyes)

I finally had time to make another video :)

#planning #california #UrbanPlanning #logistics

youtube.com/watch?v=35wB...

I personally have never interacted with replacement projects that involved a destroyed structure specifically within the Coastal zone. However I have worked on a # of new build projects within the coastal zone with complaint and non compliant LCPs. I have not worked with South Coast in a while…

Correct, western Joshua tree but with the WJT Preservation Act, I don’t believe most project with a WJT trigger a take permit that requires CEQA anymore.

Yes, since some houses along the PCH touch sand or in dual jurisdictional areas, the CCC would have review power over them. This EO applies.

Correct, but I meant concerning Bass’s EO

This, then everyone thinks they’re an expert, and then they forget and the cycle repeats at the next press mention of CEQA. (See: Make UC A Good Neighbor v UC Regents Debacle).

I feel like the CEQA exemption is mainly virtue signaling since most of not all rebuilding wouldn’t trigger any discretionary action with LA being the lead agency. I could see houses along the beach which are most likely in Coastal Original Jurisdictional zones but Bass doesn’t control CCC.

Just to be clear, CCC does a lot more good than any perceived harm. But sometimes I too have been frustrated when working with them as a planner due to some sections being steadfast in their ways.

Under the Coastal Act of 1976, they have some review power for developments within the coastal zone. I think he perceives them as a roadblock in building.
Untrue in the palisades since they have a compliant LCP. However, houses built on beach may still be subject per original jurisdictional powers.

Plansplainer Urban planning concepts simplified. Hopefully.

With all of this talk again about #CEQA and general #cityplanning, here’s a shameless plug to my YouTube channel where you can watch a college senior regurgitate AEP’s CEQA guidelines book. (Please go easy on him, he didn’t write his first EIR section yet).

youtube.com/@plansplaine...

Agreed, from what I understand, rebuilding wouldn’t trigger any discretionary action with the exception of buildings within the CCC original jurisdictional area or an area without a compliant LCP, or within an ESHA.

Although, if I’ve seen commercial developments trigger CEQA because of 1 onsite WJT

They should be more hyped about the 2025 CBC fire hazard zone standards, potentially updating LHMPs, WFHZs, Hazard GP elements, and wildfire evac modeling 😭

CEQA isn’t applicable for most rebuilds in this case anyways (except for CCC original jurisdictional area buildings)

NGL, most rebuilding would not trigger CEQA as they were already approved uses. Assuming the Palisades community has a compliant LCP, most houses wouldn’t necessarily go through Coastal Act either unless they are in that funky original jurisdiction area? (Rusty on this one)

Please remember OPR is now LCI smh