Plant Prefab’s Steve Glenn: Benefits of Prefab & Modular Design in Expediting Reconstruction After Disaster
The scale of the destruction wrought by the Eaton and Palisades fires brings complex challenges for rebuilding and reconstruction. With Plant Prefab’s new automated facility operating in Tejon Ranch with capacity to build up to 2,000 homes in a year, TPR checked in with Steve Glenn, founder of Plant Prefab, to elaborate on the benefits of custom designed prefabricated and modular homes could offer for expediting rebuilding efforts. Praising Mayor Bass’s executive directive expediting local permitting for reconstruction in the Palisades, Glenn shares his hope that this tragedy opens the door for innovative solutions to more rapidly permit and produce climate resilient and high-quality housing in LA County and beyond.
“We have both the obligation and, frankly, the responsibility, to be an important part of a solution for housing, particularly since we are literally the only automated, high-capacity prefabrication plant in Southern California.”
Steve, since our most recent interview with you, Plant Prefab has become operational in a new state-of-the-art facility in Tejon Ranch. Given the devastation that has befallen Southern California, share how prefab could contribute to addressing the many housing challenges ahead.
Well, first of all, we're unique among prefabricators in that we focus on customized design. We work with any architect on any design. Most prefab companies are product companies. They have a specific product that they sell–we don’t. We review your plans and try to find a more efficient way using prefabrication.
Second, we have a patented hybrid building system so we do both panels and modules, which is unique in the industry. Both systems have certain advantages and disadvantages and most prefab companies only offer one system. We developed this hybrid system because so many elements of a project—its design, budget, transportation, installation, logistics, schedule, whether it was originally designed for standard construction etc. – impact the specific approach you can or should take to build it most efficiently with offsite construction. A hybrid system gives us much greater flexibility in terms of how we address these elements.
We've spoken in the past about that.
Third, we opened the only automated plant in the U.S. that constructs both panels and modifications. 40% of our projects are a combination of panels and mods. Some are all mods and some are all panels.
Lastly, we are a Benefit Corporation and a certified B-Corp and sustainability is in our DNA. We’ve been building in a very responsible way with respect to energy, water, material resources, and health from day one.
Given our mission—we have both the obligation and, frankly, the responsibility, to be an important part of a solution for housing, particularly since we are literally the only automated, high-capacity prefabrication plant in Southern California. We can do 1,000 to 2,000 homes a year as an important part of the solution.
Reiterate for TPR readers Plant Prefab’s mission.
We're trying to create a much more efficient way to build architectural, really well-designed, high-quality and sustainable homes.
Steve, with the scale of the devastation in the Palisades and Altadena—16,000 structures, including many homes damaged or destroyed—what can those displaced reasonably expect from Government?
First of all, there is extensive mitigation work that needs to happen quickly related to clearing debris and toxic materials and rebuilding infrastructure. My understanding is it took about a year or more for Lahaina, and there is 10x the destruction for these recent fires. It would be unfortunate if it took that long, but it may. There’s a lot of complex work to be done that’s really the Army Corps of Engineers' responsibility, but that’s number one.
Second, we need more short-term housing. It was great to see Mayor Bass help facilitate TCOs (temporary certificates of occupancy), expediting that process, which can help ease the transition.
Third, we need a much more efficient permitting process for people who lost their homes. Malibu introduced some important measures to expedite permitting, but they were understaffed the handle the huge volume of applications for work they received. LA can learn from what they did—both what worked and what could be improved. Mayor Bass has already released some initial programs allowing rebuilding by right and committing to a 30-day process for permits, which is incredible. As an aside, I hope that some of this thinking ultimately applies to all construction in LA. Even before this disaster, we needed to build more housing. The process was too cumbersome, too slow, and too expensive. While it’s awkward to say, one of the positive things that could come out of this is a more efficient permitting process for all types of housing.
Fourth, we need more funding for both affordable and market-rate housing. This is especially important in Altadena. In the Palisades, it was higher-end housing, so people were probably better insured and had more resources, though that’s not true for everyone. Many older residents who have been there for a long time may face greater challenges.
Lastly, one of the things Malibu did that was smart—typically, you need to have a main house before you can build an ADU (Accessory Dwelling Unit). They flipped that rule, allowing people to put an ADU on the property while their main home was being rebuilt. We actually did this for at least one client, maybe even two. It’s a way to get people back into their communities sooner. There’s still the issue of utilities—water and power need to be restored before an ADU can be functional—but it’s a step in the right direction.
There has been much discussion about whether people should be rebuilding in these areas at all. It’s a great discussion to have. Personally, I do believe there are certain areas where maybe we should heed the call of nature and recognize that some places are too challenging to defend against fires. Maybe we move beyond those but densify other areas, so there’s no net loss of housing.
Regardless, we need to build in a more climate-responsive way, particularly with respect to fire resilience. There’s a lot that can be done. Yes, it’s more expensive, which is frustrating, but maybe there’s some government support to make it more feasible.
Fire-resilient, elaborate on what you mean.
Some people have asked whether you can fire-proof a home. No, you can’t fireproof anything, but can you make it much more resilient to fire, meaning it takes a much bigger and longer fire event before there's any level of combustion.
It starts with landscaping, actually. What you do in your yard matters—making sure there aren’t plants that can easily catch fire, like underbrush. Certain kinds of trees are more resilient than others, so that’s step one.
Step two is the home itself. Exteriors are critical. Many of the homes that burned down in the Palisades had sprinklers—they were newer homes. Why did they burn down? Because their exteriors caught fire.
Fire sprinklers are designed for interior fires, but exterior resilience is what determines survival in a wildfire. So, metal roofs are much more appropriate in high fire-hazard areas. Cementitious cladding—like Hardie Board or other high-design cementitious materials—is far better than wood. And then there are external sprinkler systems that create a water shield over the roof and exterior. We've implemented those for clients.
Other key design choices include avoiding eaves, which can trap embers. We don’t use them in our construction, but some people do, and it increases risk. These are all very doable design decisions that can significantly reduce fire risk. There have been articles about homes that survived in the Palisades, and if you look at them, they check every box I just mentioned. Of course, luck plays a role too, but smart design is a major factor.
Steve, you've now been invested in the Prefab space for more than a decade. You've learned a lot building custom homes—not planned communities. Is Prefab faster—more efficient to build—and cheaper?
We have proven to be more efficient, nearly always for time. Experienced developers have told us our construction schedules are 30-50% faster than what they would expect with a traditional, site based process. They’ve also told us we tend to be more reliable – that our schedules slip far less than site processes, for example, and we have few if any Change Orders that impact budgets. And many of our clients claim we’ve been lower cost – at least compared to bids they received for site-based process.
FYI, we have done planned communities–32 homes by Lake Tahoe and 31 units by Telluride, so big for us, but certainly not production level. But we also didn't have this facility. We started with a facility in Rialto, and then another one in Ontario, and now we have our first mega factory.
We can do 1,000 to 2,000 homes, about 3 million plus square feet a year at our new facility, which we opened a little over a year ago. It's a very different scale of capability and automation. None of the other facilities had automation. This is a $40 million facility, and $15 million is just automated equipment to do this super efficiently. There's a video where we show this.
Steve, with experience in multiple jurisdictions, elaborate on the need to reform current permitting processes. What needs to change?
If you're building a modular structure, the permitting process is a bit different from a site-based process. In California, you go through the same planning approval process, but the building permit process is bifurcated. For planning approvals, modular structures are treated the same as site-built homes. Legally, there are no zoning exclusions specific to modular homes—they are not classified as mobile homes. Even financing follows the same regulations, meaning banks can’t discriminate against modular homes. However, since modular construction is much faster than traditional building, banks aren’t always aligned with our payout schedules.
Once you get through planning—whether dealing with coastal regulations, high-fire zones, or other special approvals—the process splits. Local municipalities review and approve site-specific elements like foundations and utility connections. They also handle on-site inspections as usual. The state, however, is responsible for reviewing and approving the off-site modular components, and inspections happen at the factory. The Department of Housing oversees this process but outsources inspections to private companies—13 in total. We work with Radco, one of the largest.
Typically, from submission to approval, the process takes about two to three weeks—not just for first review, but for full approval. That’s extremely efficient. Once the modules are built, they’re inspected at the factory, and we receive signed certification before delivery. Local municipalities have no authority to open the walls on-site, which streamlines installation significantly.
Historically, permitting in Los Angeles has taken a lot of time. But with Mayor Bass committing to a 30-day approval process for rebuilding, that could change. If this timeline holds, it would be a huge improvement. Between streamlined state-level approvals and an expedited local process, rebuilding could happen much faster. Do I believe it? Let’s see. What I do believe is that with so many people displaced, there will be enormous demand and, hopefully, the political will to make this work.
How credible are the assertions by public officials in the immediate aftermath of the fires that rebuilding homes will be expedited when, for example, the City of Los Angeles can’t handle even 5,000 permit requests and reviews per year?
There are very real capacity challenges. There are real staffing issues. One idea that’s been discussed in prefab circles—even at the state level—is allowing private companies to handle review and approvals for prefab projects – both on and off-site. Even before the fire, there were calls for greater efficiency to the process. Now, it’s even more urgent. Allowing private companies to help could be a helpful approach because these companies have the capacity. As private enterprises, they compete for business and are incentivized to be efficient. I hope ideas like this are explored.
Pivoting to another challenge – the material costs of rebuilding. Elaborate on the concept and value of “buyers collectives.”
We’ve been thinking about what we call “Community Collectives” for a while and see a great opportunity. The idea is to bring together groups of buyers around one or a small set of standardized homes. Instead of individuals purchasing single homes at single-home pricing, they become part of a collective buying, say 100 homes, which means significantly better pricing. This is especially relevant for the types of homes in the Palisades—high-quality homes with nicer finishes, fixtures, and more glass. Material costs can make up 60% of a budget, so buying in bulk reduces costs. Similarly, producing more homes lowers labor costs. The benefits are both financial and time-related—just as production home builders like KB Home, Lennar, or Pulte enjoy efficiencies by building multiple lots, this approach could do the same. The faster a project is completed, the lower the costs.
And this might be particularly impactful for Altadena, where the home values are much less, and there’s a higher rate of under or uninsured.
I was thinking about this last week—now is the time. You have areas like Alphabet Streets, the Palisades, and Sunset Mesa, where 400 homes were lost, 300 on similar lot sizes under the same zoning. This concept could really work. Interestingly, an HOA from one of these areas reached out to us with the same idea, so we’re hopeful.
The last issue of The Planning Report, included an op-ed, The Fires Still Burn, but Our Future Cannot Wait, signed by civic leaders hoping to jump start a few ideas to meet the region’s needs going forward.
One of the five big ideas proposed was an LA Regional Construction Co-Op, which appears to align with the possibility of a buyers collective. Is the latter of value & needed?
I’m not familiar with the specifics of their proposal, but our concept of a buyer collective follows a similar approach. We used to offer—and plan to reintroduce—standard homes through Plant Prefab under the LivingHomes brand. We worked with world-class architects like Ray Kappe, Kieran Timberlake, and Brooks + Scarpa, as well as designers like Yves Béhar, to develop a range of homes, from ADUs to full-sized residences. The idea was that buyers could visit our website, select a home model, configure it in real time, and choose finishes and fixtures. What we’re looking at now is refining this approach for specific areas affected by the fires, considering lot dimensions in places like the Palisades and Altadena, and incorporating various architectural styles. While there are modern homes in the Palisades, many are Cape Cod-style or other traditional vernaculars. We would work with architects specializing in those styles to offer standard models, then form collectives around those homes.
If a group of buyers is interested in a particular model, they can opt in, and we will pair them with a general contractor who will handle the site work. Our role would be to supply the materials and prefab components, while the contractor manages the construction. That’s our vision, but we’d also be open to participating in a broader Co-Op.
Before concluding, address the importance of FEMA’s role in disaster recovery al—whether in Maui, California, Texas, or Florida. As someone deeply involved in rebuilding efforts, what are your hopes and concerns regarding FEMA’s ability to deliver under new leadership?
We've heard a lot of interviews from some folks who seem to be politicizing this process and making certain demands on federal aid, which is just without precedent and is not how it should work. The fires aren’t even out. It just seems incredibly irresponsible and inappropriate.
FEMA is an important organization in terms of helping people get the support they need—financial support, shelter support, logistical support—and I hope they’re going to be able to do what they need to do in the next administration.
Lastly–any rebuilding at scale clearly will necessitate increased reliance on all forms of government to assist. Given the multiple layers of government—federal, state, and local—in California today, is a state-created single point of authority for rebuilding necessary & appropriate?
It's critical on so many levels, and let's just stay with permitting. One of the biggest problems with permitting is all the various groups whose approvals you need. In the past, bad decisions were made, corners cut, and that has led to safety issues or deaths. All this stuff is well intentioned, but the process has become too burdensome, and there have been attempts to make the process more efficient along the way to varying degrees of success.
I hope given the magnitude of the problem here–we had a housing crisis before this, it’s just become exacerbated–that there will be real political will to get out of the way in places where there’s more of an impedance. I’m not a libertarian, so I believe the government has an important role to play, but I’m also for free markets. I believe private enterprises competing can create more efficient solutions to things, but often need the support, guidance, and incentives of the government.
