Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Building Code 2025 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mono County holds public hearing on adopting 2025 California Building Code; officials flag snow-load and sleeping‑loft changes
Summary
Building official Tom Perry told the board the county must adopt the 2025 California Building Code to remain current, highlighted AB 130’s code‑freeze/exceptions, proposed Appendix P (sleeping lofts) to aid multifamily conversions, and outlined concerns about new modeled snow loads and workarounds using local observational loads.
Tom Perry, Mono County’s building official, opened a public hearing Feb. 3 required by state law to move forward with local adoption of the 2025 California Building Code.
Perry said the hearing follows a Jan. 20 workshop and that formal adoption will occur at the board’s Feb. 10 consent agenda. "This is really just really a formality to adopt codes to keep our local code updated," he said, noting that the state code is effective statewide whether or not the county adopts local ordinances.
Perry highlighted three items the county discussed at the workshop: AB 130 (a statewide 'building code freeze' measure with limited exceptions such as emergency ordinances and wildland‑urban interface rules), a proposed Appendix P to allow small loft sleeping areas to be legalized in multifamily dwellings to expand housing options, and the 2025 code’s new approach to snow loads. He said the new standard relies on a modeled hazard tool that gives higher snow loads in many locations; Mono County plans to pursue the allowed alternative means of construction for engineers who want to use existing local snow‑load values, submitting requests for an "alternative means" review rather than adopting higher model‑driven loads.
Perry said other mountain jurisdictions (Truckee, Placer County, Alpine County) plan similar approaches and that California Building Officials have published guidance supporting county use of existing snow loads as an equivalent alternative. "We feel confident that we have good footing to do this," he said.
Supervisors asked whether the county could adopt standards higher than state requirements; Perry said the county cannot adopt a higher mandatory standard that conflicts with state law but can process alternatives for local conditions. He and board members discussed timing and that final action will be on the Feb. 10 consent calendar.
The hearing drew no public testimony and the board provided no new direction beyond preparing the ordinance for final adoption.
Quote: "There are different ways engineers can use our existing snow loads to arrive at values that are very similar to what we've used all these years," Perry said, urging use of alternative means to avoid excessive, model‑driven snow‑load increases.
