A few years ago, we encountered a permitting problem that illustrates one of the more frustrating parts of working through the City of Los Angeles: what happens when two departments disagree about who is responsible for making a decision?

We were working on a residential project in Mt. Washington that had triggered several Bureau of Engineering (BOE) hillside clearances. To avoid significant road-improvement requirements, the owner agreed to reduce the project to less than 500 square feet—below the applicable Baseline Hillside Ordinance (BHO) threshold.

That's when things got complicated.

Because the property was also within the Mt. Washington–Glassell Park Specific Plan, LADBS maintained that the BOE clearances should remain on the project. Their position was essentially: we place the clearance; BOE can review the project and determine whether you're exempt.

So we went to BOE.

BOE reviewed the situation and gave us the opposite answer: if the project is exempt, LADBS shouldn't be sending you here. LADBS determines whether the clearance applies.

And the loop began.

Who Actually Removes the Clearance?

For weeks, we went back and forth between the two departments.

LADBS told us BOE should review the project and clear it.

BOE told us there was nothing for them to review because the project was below the applicable threshold—and that LADBS was responsible for determining whether the clearance applied.

At one point, BOE put its position very clearly in writing:

“It is not up to BOE to respond to clearance as ‘not applicable’.”

BOE explained that LADBS determines the applicability of PCIS clearances and, when a project is exempt from BHO requirements, LADBS verifies that exemption and updates the clearances accordingly.

That was the fundamental problem: we weren't really debating whether the project was under 500 square feet anymore. We were debating which department had the authority to recognize that fact.

Eventually, We Got an Answer

After several more weeks of emails, calls and internal discussions between LADBS, BOE and Planning, an LADBS supervisor finally wrote:

“It was determined that only additions greater than 500 sq ft would be subject to those clearances.”

A few days later, our plan checker confirmed that the BHO clearance had been removed.

The project could finally move forward.

The Lesson

This isn't about blaming an individual plan checker. The interaction between the Specific Plan and the BHO created a legitimate question, and several City employees ultimately helped resolve it.

But applicants shouldn't have to serve as messengers between City departments.

When LADBS believes BOE should make a determination and BOE believes LADBS should make it, there should be a direct internal escalation process. The architect or homeowner shouldn't spend weeks carrying one department's interpretation to another.

A single clearance may look like a small administrative item in a permit system. But that checkbox can hold up an otherwise approved project indefinitely.

In our case, the eventual answer was relatively simple:

The project was under 500 square feet. The BOE clearance didn't apply. And LADBS had the authority to remove it.

It just took us weeks to get everyone to the same answer.

A recent Burbank residential remodel raised a deceptively simple question: when does altering an existing wall count as demolishing it? The City’s demolition guidance calculates demolition based on the linear length of existing walls removed and states that a wall can be considered remaining when its framing retains a structural function with a top plate. During plan review, however, Planning took the position that creating or modifying window openings should count toward the demolished wall length. Their reasoning relied on Burbank Municipal Code Section 10-1-1810, Continuation of Structure: because one portion of the existing house encroached into a required setback, the house was considered a nonconforming structure, and Planning applied that section’s discussion of removal of structural framing to window alterations elsewhere in the house—even though those windows were located in otherwise conforming walls.

We questioned that interpretation. Section 10-1-1810 repeatedly addresses nonconforming features and portions of a structure, and even specifically addresses new window and door openings in nonconforming exterior walls. More importantly, the windows in question were not located in the setback-encroaching walls at all. Applying the section’s demolition language to conforming walls simply because another part of the house is nonconforming appeared to blur two separate questions: whether an existing structure is legally nonconforming, and how much of that structure is actually being demolished. This was also difficult to reconcile with the City’s own demolition guidance, which focuses on whether a wall remains structurally functional rather than whether individual studs are modified to accommodate an opening.

After considerable discussion, the City ultimately accepted our demolition calculation and allowed the project to proceed without counting the proposed window alterations as demolished wall. The resolution was project-specific rather than a formal reinterpretation of the code; the City considered, among other factors, that the great majority of the existing house would remain substantially unchanged. While we appreciate the practical resolution, the underlying ambiguity remains. Our takeaway for architects and homeowners working on Burbank remodels is to identify nonconforming conditions early, document exactly which walls are actually being altered, and distinguish carefully between a nonconforming structure, a nonconforming portion of that structure, and a demolished wall. Until the City publishes clearer guidance, that distinction can have a surprisingly significant effect on what might otherwise be a straightforward remodel.