By they just remodeled and it shouldn’t count as new work, this is what you mean all internal and external walls were removed and new framing was added. https://www.ocregister.com/2018/08/09/coastal-commission-votes-to-tear-down-illegal-seawall-double-recommended-fine-on-laguna-beach-homeowners-to-1-million/ Oh and they asked for and were refused permission for a substantial redevelopment and said they were just doing some cosmetic work https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2018/8/Th8s/th8s-8-2018-report.pdf
5 Likes
Here’s the thing;
If you have the kind of money that you can actually afford to spend 25M on a piece of property, it would be wise to make sure that any structures you buy or build on said property are sustainable.
I get it that ocean views are lovely and all, but buildings positioned too close to the sea are pretty much always at risk from inclement weather and erosion over time. That’s kind of a no-brainer to me.
6 Likes
Yeah that’s a remodel not new development. Old wood is replaced or sistered in. Old electrical and plumbing is swapped out. Pretty normal full remodel. I mean some people tear down the whole house save one wall for tax purposes, change the footprint and area and it’s not considered new development.
Yep and then they lead to bigger seawalls and the cycle continues until you end up with this:
1 Like
Yeah, I think it’s that one too. Looks like there’s been a ton of work on it since the google image was taken.
As I said before, rich assholes crying…
"Before the Katzes bought the home, the previous owners had been turned down by the commission when they’d sought to rebuild the house. Several commissioners expressed concern that the Katzes had deliberately tried to skirt the Coastal Act.
“In my mind, this is a case where the property owners decided not to be bound by the law governing development on our coast,” Commissioner Donne Brownsey said."
They even bought the house next door for $14M so no one could build a house to block their view. Seems like a case of more money than sense.
3 Likes
I mean, how dare the commission take this opportunity to order the removal of a structure that is going to accelerate the destruction of adjacent properties and erosion of the beach into a cliff face? The cheek of them, protecting the common interest from a different bureacracy’s previous mistake!
4 Likes
Development is defined in their local code to include reconstruction as well as any changes to the size of a structure.
1 Like
I have less than zero sympathy for California beach-house owners upset by lack of privacy and inability to control the beach area. This is how it’s always been in California; the beach has always been public property, ever since my family came here in the 19th century (and built a house on the beach). If they didn’t like that, they should never have bought the property in the first place. But, of course, they thought their wealth would override both law and custom.
Probably even sooner than that, based on what I’ve been reading.
Honestly, I ask myself that every single day.
It’s true. This being California, I’d expect the numbers to be higher.
5 Likes
No it was the coastal commission that retroactively permitted the sea wall in the first place not ‘some other bureaucracy’.
ETA: what happened is the current homeowners bought the property contingent on being able to secure the retroactive permit for the seawall. They got the permit for the seawall based on the contingency that it became invalid with new development. They came to the board with plans to build a new house and the commission said that it would invalidate the seawall permit. They then asked if a remodel would invalidate the permit and were told that it would not. Then they hire an architect to do the remodel and they did so in a typical and permitted way. Then somewhere along the line a new commissioner was appointed and she decided to renege on the deal.
Citation required
Laguna Beach code 25.07.006 section D “Development” means the placement or erection of any solid material or structure on land or in or under water; the discharge or disposal of any dredged material or of any gaseous, liquid, solid or thermal waste; the grading, removing, dredging, mining or extraction of any materials; a change in the density or intensity of use of land including, but not limited to, the subdivision of land pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Section 66410 of the Government Code) and any other division of land, including lot splits; change in intensity of use of water, or of access, thereto; the construction, reconstruction, demolition or alteration of the size of any structure, including any facility of any private, public or municipal utility; and the removal or harvesting of major vegetation other than for agricultural purposes; and kelp harvesting.
3 Likes
Thank you for that, but that fodder is unfortunately manure.
I recognize the tragedy that entire communities, societies, and ways of life will be wiped out when the oceans rise. However, those islands were presumably inhabited some thousands of years ago when settling on a low-lying island or motu was a fairly normal thing to do. (The settlements also worked for generations and generations, but then climate change.) Anyway, the millionaires in the story acted foolishly because there are risks (and proverbs!) around building one’s house on sand. Secondly, it wasn’t necessary to build there. They simply should have known better, and will be fine if their investment property gets swept into the sea. It’s an apples to oranges comparison you made there, because it’s a bit more of a serious issue with the islanders.
5 Likes
You left out 25.07.008 the exemptions.
" Improvements to Single-family Homes. Improvements to single-family dwellings and mobilehomes including structures normally associated with a single-family residence such as garages, swimming pools, fences, storage sheds and landscaping are exempt unless classified as one of the following:"
Now I suppose they could argue that the house is on the beach instead of being on the hill above the beach and thus is exempt from the exemption. Labyrinthine regulations encourage this sorts of abuses by regulatory agencies.
So the “deal” is more important than the devastating effect of the seawall, that was supposed to be temporary, on the neighboring houses? On the public beach? Your priorities are still screwed up.
2 Likes
I didn’t mention the exemption because they are within 50 feet of the bluff (A2) and aren’t eligible for it. These is all pretty standard language for a zoning code. As for the contention that that the Coastal Commission reneged on a deal. That was Katz defense 23 and the ruling has a rather clear rebuttal. At this point I’m done. The goalposts keep wandering back. No one knows the facts of the case, oh wait well it wasn’t a development just a remodel, okay it was development, but doesn’t count because it is a single family home,… I don’t know what the next step for the goalpost is but I’m not following it anymore.
4 Likes
Dear Mr and Mrs Katz,
Please consider the reduced value of your home as part of the fine.
2 Likes
Cities permit stuff all the time and then go oopsies ¯_(ツ)_/¯, we made a mistake, gfy. I just had a buddy be required to install cast iron sewage lines because he is building a 3-story house. The line of code is buried very deep and was supposed to have been deleted. He talked to the politicians in Sacramento that wrote the revisions to the code and they were like, “whoops. That was supposed to be deleted. Sorry, gfy.” He had gotten approval from the inspector that has the last word. Then they gave the inspector a promotion and a week before he was supposed to install the plumbing, he was back to having to install cast iron at insane expense. It’s BS. If the coastal commission had never retroactively permitted the seawall in the first place, they wouldn’t be in the investment at all.
1 Like
You’re right! $70K per month wouldn’t even cover the mortgage!
1 Like
I can have sympathy for them, but this seems like a pretty clear use of eminent domain for the greater good. Compensate, of course, but maybe based on the projected value of the property over the next 50 years, rather than recent sales history.
My assumption is that houses underwater have lower values, but on the other hand, people may be happy to buy a disposable house that will have a great view for 10 years…
