OpenCampaign

Environment

Community Voice

Shoreline erosion along burnout PCH houses.

Destruction of home-attached seawalls in the Palisades Fire area removed prior protection that had limited ocean erosion of the bluff and PCH embankment. Agencies now face choices about rock slope protection, seawall repairs, geogrid embankments, and longer-term approaches amid concerns that unaddressed erosion will accelerate and that storm cycles could compress years of loss into single events.

How should Malibu-area agencies balance hard shoreline armor versus other approaches when stabilizing PCH after loss of residential seawalls?

Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.

How important is this to you?

Sources

SFGATE — https://www.sfgate.com/la/article/pacific-coast-highway-malibu-22383912.php
Before the Palisades Fire, seawalls attached to beachfront homes protected Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu from erosion. Erosion has rapidly accelerated since the fire destroyed those homes.
Caltrans — https://dot.ca.gov/caltrans-near-me/district-7/district-7-projects/pch-palisades-fire-repairs
Crews will be building rock slope protection to reinforce the eroded slope, reconstruct the embankment with geogrid (geosynthetic reinforcement) and reconstruct damaged pavement near Ratner Beach in Malibu.
City of Malibu — https://malibucity.org/PCHErosionResponse
Left unaddressed, the erosion trend will continue to accelerate, removing the material that supports the roadway embankment.
Positions on this issue  ·  liberal → conservative
  1. Favor managed retreat, soft protections, and strict environmental limits on new hard armor along the coast
  2. Combine targeted armor where PCH is at risk with nature-based buffers and full environmental review
  3. Allow site-specific mix of rock protection, seawall repair, and monitoring as engineers recommend
  4. Prioritize proven hard structures and rapid slope reconstruction to secure the highway first
  5. Oppose expansive new coastal armoring mandates; keep interventions minimal and property-driven

Wildfire property insurance

Commercial and residential property insurance costs in California have risen sharply due to climate risk, litigation, and wildfire exposure. Malibu is explicitly cited in debates over whether policyholders elsewhere should subsidize higher risk for homes in wildfire zones, and state leaders have advanced fire-mitigation and insurance-market proposals amid a broader insurance crisis.

How should California address rising property insurance costs tied to wildfire risk in places like Malibu?

Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.

How important is this to you?

Sources

California at 175 Conference panel (ballot initiatives discussion) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYDlyFUsr8s
is commercial property insurance costs have risen dramatically due to climate risk and litigation. Do you foresee ballot initiatives addressing insurance regulation or climate liability that could impact underwriting costs for commercial properties? You know, politically it's a tough one because when you deal with insurance, you're deal with mutualization. And so should somebody in REIA pay more because somebody has a house near a wildfire zone in Malibu?
Senator Ben Allen — https://www.latimes.com/california/newsletter/2026-01-03/la-on-the-record-six-political-stories-in-2026
California Has An Insurance Crisis. Senator Ben Allen Says He Has A Plan To Fix It. Senator Allen has put his money on fire mitigation and bringing stakeholders together in communities up and down the state to reduce their risk and stay insured.
Positions on this issue  ·  liberal → conservative
  1. Strongly expand public insurance backstops and require insurers to keep covering high-risk wildfire zones
  2. Invest heavily in public fire mitigation and limit insurer withdrawals while reforming climate liability
  3. Balance mitigation grants, limited residual markets, and gradual risk-based pricing reforms
  4. Allow more risk-based rates and reduce litigation exposure so private insurers stay in the market
  5. End cross-subsidies; high-risk coastal and hillside owners should bear full private insurance costs

Oceanfront rebuilds and remaining beach land

Large numbers of beachfront homes along PCH burned. Public commentary in coverage argues some ocean-side PCH homes should never be rebuilt because little land remains, while recovery policy still contemplates private reconstruction alongside seawalls, septic, and erosion control. This ties community character, coastal space, and hazard exposure to permit decisions.

Should Malibu allow rebuilding of homes on the ocean side of PCH where little land remains after the fire?

Tap a point along the line below to show where you stand.

How important is this to you?

Sources

ABC7 commenter/context on Facebook video — https://www.facebook.com/ABC7/videos/rebuilding-in-malibu-after-palisades-fire-is-complex-and-moving-slow/1851612925744277
the city of Malibu has issued 11 permits to rebuild. those homes on the ocean side of PCH should never be rebuilt. There is hardly any land left there, and no
ABC7 Los Angeles — https://abc7.com/post/new-zealand-billionaires-mat-nick-mowbray-buy-burned-malibu-lots-plan-build-prefab-homes/18356790
Over 700 homes were destroyed in Malibu - 300 of them were beachfront properties along Pacific Coast Highway.
NY Post / City of Malibu data — https://nypost.com/2026/08/01/us-news/malibu-homeowners-struggle-to-rebuild-18-months-after-palisades-fire
Out of the 1,076 permits for damages, repairs, debris removal, and structures along the Pacific Coast Highway, only 88 are for new home construction, according to the City of Malibu.
Positions on this issue  ·  liberal → conservative
  1. Prohibit ocean-side PCH rebuilds, buy out lots, and restore beach/public coastal access
  2. Heavily restrict oceanfront rebuilds and require retreat or nature-based buffers first
  3. Allow rebuilds only with strict setbacks, elevation, and proven shoreline protection
  4. Permit oceanfront owners to rebuild on prior footprints if they fund their own defenses
  5. Affirm full rebuild rights on private beachfront lots with minimal new coastal limits