• Welcome to The Building Code Forum

    Your premier resource for building code knowledge.

    This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.

    Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.

    Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.

Your suggestions for post-wildfire demo and rebuild permits

Y

Yikes

SAWHORSE
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
3,982
Location
Southern California
Current estimates are that more than 12,000 structures have been destroyed in the recent LA-area wildfires, and that number is likely to rise. Many of them were not directly adjacent to the wildland area, but 80-100 mph winds blew the ashes from building to building, like a chain reaction.
LA already has a housing shortage problem that just got a lot worse.
Let's say for sake of discussion that the decision has been made to allow people to rebuild their homes, at least in the same footprint as previously existed subject to verification of square footage from the county tax assessor. Let's also assume that those property owners are able to provide basic floor plans. Maybe a draftsperson is able to look at the foundation, talk to the homeowners, look at old photos and do a basic set of floor plans, elevations, and site plans. There will for sure be pressure to minimize the amount of documentation required to rebuild and resume residency.

OK, there's probably 3 main building departments (LA City, LA County, and Pasadena), plus a fewer smaller municipalities that will soon be inundated with perhaps 10,000 building applications, and you manage one of those departments. What do you do?
  • Do you call on other building departments from around the state to assist? How about outside the state?
  • Can you issue express permits for demolition? How do you handle waste and recycling of demo materials, especially since the debris might have materials considered toxic?
  • Would you allow them to rebuild according to the code applicable at that time, or will you require upgrades to current codes? Seismic upgrades? WUI upgrades?
  • Would you require energy upgrades or current solar / sustainability upgrades? Would you still allow fireplaces?
  • Would you deputize other licensed professionals (engineers, architects, technical trades like licensed electricians) to plan check and/or inspect on behalf of the AHJ?
  • Would you allow temporary permits for RVs and mobile homes and their hookups? Would you suspend design review or other planning/zoning reviews?
  • Would you develop your own standard prescriptive plans and details as a handout, in lieu of a fully developed details provided by the applicant?
Open to suggestions and ideas.
 
Some of what you mentioned might be possible in the tract areas but the custom homes that burned will be replaced with new custom houses. Current code is required. I would find it next to impossible to use a dozen archived codes.

All of the ancillary agencies are going to want to remain relevant.

This is a unique disaster given the relative wealth of the victims. There needs to be a careful look at every step in order to stop the crooks from fleecing the flock.
 
I think anything that is built from the ground up has to conform to current codes. Anything else would probably require an act of the legislature.

As to the logistics, I think California should consider allowing plans to be reviewed and approved by building officials, assistant building officials, and plan reviewers licensed/certified by any state. I don't know if this could be accomplished under a governor's executive order or if it would require an act of the legislature. For tracts, if there were any areas that were repetitive, approval of a stock set of plans could be applicable to multiple houses constructed from the same set of plans.

The stickiest wicket will probably be construction inspections. There is already a shortage of building inspectors nationwide. Even if California were to enact emergency provisions allowing inspectors licensed/certified by other jurisdictions to inspect fire rebuilds of single family residences -- where are they going to find enough licensed/certified inspectors?
 
ICE said:
This is a unique disaster given the relative wealth of the victims. There needs to be a careful look at every step in order to stop the crooks from fleecingO the flock.
Click to expand...
I think there is a stereotype out there that the homeowners are all wealthy. That may be somewhat true in Pacific Palisades, but Altadena (Eaton Fire) is unique. Initial development 100 years ago was large estates and mansions, then it infilled with middle-class homes. Demographically it was 95% white. In the 1970s, there was "white flight" from Altadena, homes prices dropped and it became a 43% African-American neighborhood in the 1980s, predominantly lower to middle income.
Since that time, it began to gentrify again, and the current result is a ethnically and economically diverse neighborhood. There are now wealthy people in mansions right near low income people living in houses their grandparents acquired in the 70s. This fire will be especially tough for those lower income residents who had everything riding on their home equity.
 
This could be an interesting test if the IEBC…

1. I don’t have money to call on anyone outside.
2. Our demo is all by state law which sucks or I would speed that process, there is effectively no plan review.
3. Probably new codes with all the upgrades ( except foundation if it is not replaced)but this could be where the IEBC gets tested by the rich folk.
4. The IECC has an existing chapter so yes…good luck..yes for FP
5. Properly licensed, yes if I had money.
6. Yes we do that for fires now…We don’t do design review or zoning with no footprint change.
7. No…I wouldn’t have time and no one reads more than a page, they want to be spoon fed….
 
Question: Does the local building department have copies of the original plans for the houses that burned? If so, could they be checked by licensed plan reviewers -- or licensed design professionals -- and declared to be substantially in compliance with the current code and allowed to be used again to reconstruct the same house?

We have a state law here that requires the building department to return the building department's copy of plans for single-family residences to the owner upon request once the certificate of occupancy has been issued.

Curiously, the legislative intent was that if the plans are not returned they were to be destroyed, but that part for some reason didn't make it into the law. Nonetheless, since that provision was added to state law in 1986, any municipality's records of plans for single family residences will most likely not be complete.
 
My dollars worth
1) Demo should be waived, this is clean up.
2) Provision should be made for intact foundations, epically slab on grade, allow BO to make call if extra investigation is needed
3) Allow rebuild of home without RDP if compliant with prescriptive IRC. Here in Massachusetts this in no RDP required except part of the home that are engineered, for example that would be steel beam or trusses. From my prospective there is plenty of prescriptive pathway for wind and earthquake resistance in the IRC.
4) The rebuild needs to comply with all current building codes.
5) The rebuilds needs to comply with energy coded for thermal envelope and HVAC
6) Scrap solar requirements, these homes may have been retrofitted with if the customer wanted them, not forced on them.
 
Yankee Chronicler said:
Question: Does the local building department have copies of the original plans for the houses that burned? If so, could they be checked by licensed plan reviewers -- or licensed design professionals -- and declared to be substantially in compliance with the current code and allowed to be used again to reconstruct the same house?

We have a state law here that requires the building department to return the building department's copy of plans for single-family residences to the owner upon request once the certificate of occupancy has been issued.

Curiously, the legislative intent was that if the plans are not returned they were to be destroyed, but that part for some reason didn't make it into the law. Nonetheless, since that provision was added to state law in 1986, any municipality's records of plans for single family residences will most likely not be complete.
Click to expand...
That's a very good question. Policies vary wildly. City of LA used to have a "microfilm" fee, now a records fee to scan permit sets. In my experience trying to retrieve those plans for projects, they scan the architectural plans but I can't find structural or MEP plans.
A set of architecture-only plans is also sent to the county assessor for valuation purposes, but I don't know if they keep the drawings.
 
In my most optimistic/dream scenario, and wishing on an emotional rather than rational basis, I imagine there's some big tech company that's been beta-testing an AI house plan generator. Enter the building perimeter, tell it what you want inside, and it gives you multiple iterations. Select one, and it generates construction documents, MEP plans, energy calcs, and tells you what other professional verification is required (soils, structural, etc.).
If anybody's been working on that, now's the time to roll it out!
 
Perhaps I missed it but what is CA law on RDP and single family dwellings? On NY an RDP is required over 1500 sf.
 
bill1952 said:
Perhaps I missed it but what is CA law on RDP and single family dwellings? On NY an RDP is required over 1500 sf.
Click to expand...

Business and Professions Code - BPC​

DIVISION 3. PROFESSIONS AND VOCATIONS GENERALLY [5000 - 9998.11]​

CHAPTER 3. Architecture [5500 - 5610.7]​

ARTICLE 3. Application of Chapter [5535 - 5538]​

5537.​

(a) This chapter does not prohibit any person from preparing plans, drawings, or specifications for any of the following:​
(1) Single-family dwellings of woodframe construction not more than two stories and basement in height.​


Of course, that assumes the design is completely prescriptive, no retaining walls over 4' high, no beams or columns, etc.

Here's how the city of LA handles it: https://www.ladbs.org/docs/default-...training-1-25-2023-(1).pdf?sfvrsn=e972c153_17
 
Last edited:
I look at the picture and am amazed that we can see into the earth with such clarity.
 
Yikes said:
That's a very good question. Policies vary wildly. City of LA used to have a "microfilm" fee, now a records fee to scan permit sets. In my experience trying to retrieve those plans for projects, they scan the architectural plans but I can't find structural or MEP plans.
A set of architecture-only plans is also sent to the county assessor for valuation purposes, but I don't know if they keep the drawings.
Click to expand...
Oh…so they charge and don’t do what they are supposed to do….got it…
 
So it look like much of the fire zone is in D and E earthquake and LA allows non RDP designed home in less than D earthquake zone, am i seeing this correctly?
 
Be aware of the DRA (Disaster Response Alliance), may provide some additional resources when the time comes.
 
TheCommish said:
So it look like much of the fire zone is in D and E earthquake and LA allows non RDP designed home in less than D earthquake zone, am i seeing this correctly?
Click to expand...
California's R301.1.3.2 requires a "California licensed architect or engineer" to stamp plans for all woodframe dwellings more than "two stories and basement in height." But LA and LA County have amended that section to also impose the requirement within SDCs D0-E to anything other than single story dwellings without basements.

Cheers, Wayne
 
CA Residential Code R301.2.2.1.2 contains provisions for allowing the use of D2 provisions (allowing prescriptive design) within the following conditions:

2. Buildings located in Seismic Design Category E that conform to the following additional restrictions are permitted to be constructed in accordance with the provisions for Seismic Design Category D2, of this code:

  • 2.1. All exterior shear wall lines or braced wall panels are in one plane vertically from the foundation to the uppermost story.
  • 2.2. Floors shall not cantilever past the exterior walls.
  • 2.3. The building is within the requirements of Section R301.2.2.6 for being considered as regular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top