SB 625 California Senate · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Housing developments: disasters: reconstruction of destroyed or damaged structures.

Summary
(1) Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, governs the management and operation of common interest developments. Existing law makes any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use, as specified, void and unenforceable. If the governing documents require association approval before a member may make a physical change to the member's separate interest or to the common area, existing law requires an association to satisfy specified requirements, including to provide a fair, reasonable, and expeditious procedure for making its decision in reviewing and approving or disapproving a proposed physical change, as described above. This bill would make any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document, void and unenforceable to the extent that it prohibits, or includes conditions that have the effect of prohibiting, a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure, as specified, that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster, as defined. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the owner of a separate interest in a common interest development who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. This bill would require any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument, and any provision of a governing document that subjects a substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure that was destroyed or damaged in a disaster to review by a body to be processed and approved, as specified. The bill would defined various terms for these purposes. The bill would require the body to, among other things, determine whether an application is complete or incomplete and to provide written notice of this determination to the applicant no later than 30 calendar days after the body receives the application. Once an application is deemed complete, the bill would require the body to conduct any review of the proposed modification to the separate interest within 45 calendar days, as specified. If a body finds that a complete application is noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant, as described. If an application is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, the bill would require the body to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as specified. The bill would require a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the applicant who prevails in an action to enforce the above-described provisions. (2) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a development proponent to submit an application for a development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the development satisfies certain objective planning standards and certain procedures are followed, including that the proponent of the development project requires in contracts with construction contractors that specified standards will be met in project construction, as specified. Existing law requires the proponent of the development project to make a specified certification that certain labor standards will be met and requires the prime contractor to provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing development proponent to submit an application for a housing development that is subject to a specified streamlined, ministerial approval process if the housing development satisfies certain objective standards, including that the housing development is located on a parcel on which a residential structure was destroyed or damaged in a disaster. The bill would require a local government to approve the development within 90 days of the submittal of the development if the local government's planning director or equivalent position determines that the development is consistent with specified objective planning standards. If the development is determined to be in conflict with those standards, the bill would require the local government staff or relevant local planning and permitting department that made the determination to provide the development proponent written documentation of which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts with that standard or standards, as specified. By mandating a higher level of service on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would provide that an ordinance that precludes specified placements and uses of manufactured homes, mobilehomes, or recreational vehicles for use during the reconstruction or repair of any home damaged or destroyed in a disaster is unenforceable for a period of 3 years following the disaster declaration. The bill would require the housing development proponent to comply with certain labor standards, including that the housing development proponent will comply with the above-described labor standards, including the requirements that the development proponent make the specified certification and that the prime contractor provide an affidavit under penalty of perjury. By imposing certification and penalty of perjury requirements, this bill would expand the crime of perjury, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment, or to adopt a negative declaration if it determines that the project would not have that effect, as provided. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. This bill would provide that its streamlined, ministerial approval process for a housing development, as described above, offers an optional streamlined, ministerial approval process and does not affect the availability, applicability, or use of any other exemption from CEQA. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review process established by the bill would apply to the approval of a housing development that would otherwise be discretionary, the bill would expand the exemption for the ministerial approval of projects under CEQA. (4) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Bill status signed all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2025
Committee Review
Aug 2025
Senate Passage
Jun 2025
Assembly Passage
Sep 2025
Signed into Law
Oct 2025
Introduced Feb 20, 2025 Signed Oct 10, 2025
Maddy AI version diff · 8 comparisons

What changed between versions

07/17/25 - Amended Assembly 09/02/25 - Amended Assembly · 6 edits · Sep 2, 2025
MODERATE
The September 2 amendment to SB 625 makes several targeted changes to the disaster reconstruction provisions for common interest developments. The most significant changes are a shift from 30 business days to 45 calendar days for association review of rebuild applications, a new exception allowing associations to revisit approvals if an applicant fails to comply with approved plans, and a narrowing of the 'disaster' definition in Section 4752 from an open-ended list to a closed one.
TIMELINE

The deadline for an association or architectural review committee to complete its review of a proposed modification (including a substantially similar reconstruction) changed from 30 business days to 45 calendar days. While the total time is roughly equivalent, switching to calendar days means weekends and holidays count toward the deadline.

The appeal determination deadline changed from '60 business days' to '60 business calendar days.' This phrasing is non-standard and may be a drafting error, but as written it could extend or clarify the appeal timeline.

REQUIREMENT

A new exception was added to the finality provision: once an association approves a rebuild application, it cannot subject the applicant to additional hearings or appeals, EXCEPT when the applicant is noncompliant with the approved application. This gives associations a path to enforce compliance after approval.

DEFINITION

The definition of 'disaster' in Section 4752 was narrowed from 'a declared disaster or state of emergency, including, but not limited to, any of the following' to simply 'any of the following,' making it a closed list. Notably, Section 65914.200 (the local government streamlined approval chapter) retains the broader 'including, but not limited to' language, creating an inconsistency between the two sections.

The definition of 'substantially similar reconstruction of a residential structure' was simplified from 'a housing development proposal that rebuilds' to 'a proposal that rebuilds,' removing the 'housing development' qualifier. References throughout were also cleaned up from 'housing development residential structure' to simply 'residential structure.'

TECHNICAL

A cross-reference to Section 4765 was added for the appeal process, and the definitions subsection (h) in Section 4766 was repositioned to accommodate the new paragraph (f)(2).

Floor votes · Senate Jun 3, 2025 · Assembly Sep 8, 2025

How they voted

390
Passed · 1 other
Total votes 40
Jun 3, 2025
D Democratic30
29 Yea 1
96% Yea
R Republican10
10 Yea
100% Yea
Vote distribution
All Yea All Nay Mixed No data
Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions
30
Key actions
15
Committee
8
Amendments
8
Oct 10, 2025
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Sep 9, 2025
Upper · Passed
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2743.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
upper
Sep 8, 2025
Introduced
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
upper
Sep 8, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 2985.) Ordered to the Senate.
lower
Sep 2, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read third time and amended.
lower
Aug 20, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (August 20).
lower
Jul 17, 2025
Lower · Passed
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Jul 16, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 15).
lower
Jul 3, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
lower
Jun 23, 2025
Lower · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.
lower
Jun 9, 2025
Committee
Referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and JUD.
lower
Jun 3, 2025
Upper · Passed
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1454.) Ordered to the Assembly.
upper
May 12, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Apr 30, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0. Page 942.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
upper
Apr 23, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 11. Noes 0. Page 832.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
upper
Apr 7, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
upper
Apr 2, 2025
Committee
Re-referred to Coms. on HOUSING and JUD.
upper
Mar 26, 2025
Upper · Passed
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Mar 5, 2025
Committee
Referred to Com. on RLS.
upper
Feb 20, 2025
Introduced
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
upper
1 primary · 9 co-sponsors

Sponsors