In the aftermath of a disaster that took a great human and environmental toll, your first response should always be to loosen regulations and lower safety standards

[And yes, I realize that, despite being an urban apartment dweller who doesn't have a backyard, raising these issues will get me labeled a NIMBY, but as a former high school teacher, I've been called worse.]

From Mark Ryavec, president of the Venice Stakeholders Association, former legislative analyst for the city of Los Angeles, and Chief Deputy Assessor for Los Angeles County.

Governor Gavin Newsom is misguided in issuing an executive order to expedite rebuilding houses in the Pacific Palisades without first examining what happened there and applying lessons that may be learned to reform building codes and significantly increase the capacity of the local firefighting water system.

The governor recently issued orders to relax Coastal Commission permit requirements and environmental review for new construction as long as the replacement building is not more than 10% larger or taller than the original.

If the city of Los Angeles agrees, this will allow property owners to more quickly start rebuilding – with the same building materials and lax fire safety requirements that failed to protect over 10,000 homes.

I grew up in neighboring Santa Monica and know the community’s built environment from regularly hiking in the area.  The majority of homes that were destroyed employed stucco for their exterior walls.  Just a cursory online search reveals that standard stucco can only withstand extreme heat for about one hour.  Thus, without a change in building codes, the governor is proposing to allow the use of the same building material that failed spectacularly.

There should be an examination by a city commission of experts to determine if standard stucco should be allowed, or limited to blocks that are a half mile or mile away from wilderness areas that are likely to be again overgrown in the next five to ten years with flammable grasses and chaparral.

In some of the few homes that survived, a fiberglass filament was added to the stucco mix, which boosts its ability to withstand heat.  Another design element that was successfully deployed in some homes that withstood the fire are lumber and plywood that was coated with fire retardant during the framing stage.  The city should consider making these mandatory.

There are other building materials, such as tilt-up concrete panels, full dimension 4-inch bricks (as opposed to thin brick veneer), 3-inch-thick stone walls, and metal, which when properly installed, withstand extreme heat for at least four hours, enough time for all surrounding foliage to burn out, leaving the house standing.

Asphalt roofing shingles, which contain a significant amount of petroleum, do not well withstand fire, and should be banned in favor of Class A fireproof installations like terracotta or concrete tiles or other fireproof materials.  Similarly, the juncture of roof eaves with exterior walls is one of the locations most vulnerable to fire, so the city must adopt a requirement that these areas be properly sealed with fireproof material. 

We saw this sort of thing after the Camp fire obliterated Paradise, an unexamined rush rebuild as if that could somehow undo the tragedy. These pushes are usually accompanied by calls for resolution and even defiance. "We won't let the fires beat us!" as if they were some terrorist organization trying to break our spirits, instead of a natural force not as predictable as the tides but every bit as inevitable. The forests of the Santa Monica Mountains will burn again and when they do, the successors of the politicians who insisted on doing nothing to address the underlying problems will give heartfelt speeches empathizing with the latest generation of victims and pledging to make mistakes all over again.