If you're following the conversations around rebuilding in the aftermath of the Palisades and Eaton fires in LA (like I am), here's a more in-depth look at how the County is supporting rebuilding, steps they had previously taken to prohibit new development in high fire hazard areas, and some fundamental questions that underly rebuilding. On a more wonky note: It's also one of the first articles I've read that draws out tensions between state requirements for ADUs and local planning efforts that sought to restrict this form of development in high fire hazard areas. https://lnkd.in/exnUkXHg
Molly, thank you for the work you have been doing here in LA County and elsewhere. It is needed more than ever.
thank you Molly for your words...I don't understand why the LA County Disaster Recovery Ordinances don't come into play for temporary housing on individual parcels? I thoughts the Temporary Housing Permits were going to be submitted at the same time as the Site Clearance permitting?
CEO | California Home Designs & Policy in Motion: advancing climate resilience through design + policy – integrating net-zero energy, decarbonization, and wildfire defense to create sustainable homes and communities.
2moWe had the same discussion when my hometown in Sonoma County was devastated by the Tubbs Fire in 2017. I grew up in Santa Rosa and remember when they built Fountain Grove in the late 90s. That area is a known wind tunnel that had seen fire 50 years prior to the fire that destroyed the community in 2017. The only difference was now it had housing development which created more fuel and resulted in the fire jumping the 101 freeway and also burning down Coffey Park, which is an urban neighborhood not in a fire zone area. A lot of residents choose to sell and leave, others didn’t, but once an area is developed you can’t turn back time so I agree the best path forward is to stop building future development in Fire Hazard Severity Zones / Wildland Urban Interface areas.