Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Government Operations Agency. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law, the California Factory-Built Housing Law, generally regulates the design, manufacture, and installation of factory-built housing, as defined and specified. That law specifically and entirely reserves to local jurisdictions certain local requirements, including local use zone requirements, snow load requirements, and wind pressure requirements. That law provides that any person who violates any of those provisions and other specified law is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill also would prohibit a city, county, city and county, or district from imposing or enforcing local building standards applicable to a factory-built housing structure, as defined, that exceed or differ from the applicable mandatory standards contained in the California Building Standards Code. The bill would authorize a city or county to make changes or modifications in the requirements contained in the provisions published in the California Building Standards Code that are reasonably necessary to maintain minimum health and safety because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, subject to the city or county making a specified finding. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption in favor of a determination that facilitates the use of factory-built housing and allows a project to qualify as a factory-built housing structure. This bill would define certain key terms for purposes of the California Factory-Built Housing Law. In this regard, the bill would define "building assembly" to mean assembled construction materials, components, subsystems, subassemblies or other systems designed for use in, or as part of, factory-built housing, and "factory-built housing structure" as a residential building where at least 23 of the new or converted square footage is designated for residential use and in which at least 30% of the residential use portion of the building is built using factory-built housing. The bill would recast the definition of "factory-built housing" to mean, among other things, a residential building, dwelling unit, building component, building assembly, or building system that is manufactured in a specified manner. The bill would make other conforming changes to definitions in the California Factory-Built Housing Law, the Sales and Use Tax Law, and the Vehicle Code. By adding to the duties of local officials, and expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include findings that certain 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. 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.
The Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 sets forth various standards relating to manufactured homes, mobilehomes, special purpose commercial coaches, and commercial coaches, including, but not limited to, construction and alteration of those homes. Existing law, including the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 and the Uniform Commercial Code–Secured Transactions, defines the term "manufactured home" for various purposes to mean a structure that, among other things, is transportable in one or more sections, is 8 body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in length, in the traveling mode, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and is built on a permanent chassis. This bill would modify that definition to mean a structure that was constructed on or after June 15, 1976, with or without a foundation system, and has the same meaning as defined in specified federal law. Existing law, pursuant to the National Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to assume responsibility for the enforcement of manufactured home and mobilehome construction and safety standards relating to any issue with respect to which a federal standard has been established. Existing law also authorizes the department to adopt regulations to ensure acceptance by the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of California's plan for the administration and enforcement of federal manufactured home and mobilehome safety and construction standards. Existing law makes any person who knowingly violates any provision of the Manufactured Housing Act of 1980 or any rule or regulation issued pursuant to that act, except as specified, guilty of a misdemeanor. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2027, to review, revise, and adopt regulations to permit the construction, installation, sale, and occupancy of a manufactured home built without a permanent chassis in parity with those applicable to a manufactured home built with a permanent chassis. The bill would exempt those regulations from the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act. The bill would also require the department to report to the Legislature by July 1, 2027, on the status of the above-described regulations. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2029, to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature evaluating the statutory and administrative changes necessary to regulate, finance, title, tax, and protect homeowners in divided-tenure and leasehold homeownership arrangements, as specified, and to contract with appropriate outside parties who shall consult with certain entities, including county assessors and recorders, in preparing that report. By imposing additional duties on local officials, and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
The Permit Streamlining Act, among other things, requires public agencies to approve or disapprove of a development project within certain timeframes, as specified. The act requires public agencies to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information that will be required from any applicant for a development project. The act requires a public agency, upon its determination that an application for a development project is incomplete, to include a list and a thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. This bill would provide that for the purposes of the Permit Streamlining Act, a housing development project or emergency shelter shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision adopted or implemented by a public agency, as defined, if there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude that the housing development project or emergency shelter is consistent, compliant, or in conformity, except as specified. By imposing additional duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 a specified reason.
(1) Existing law, the California Factory-Built Housing Law, generally regulates the design, manufacture, and installation of factory-built housing and defines terms for its purposes. The law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development, among other things, to regulate quality assurance agencies to perform inspections of factory-built housing manufacturers. The law requires a local enforcement agency, among other things, to enforce and inspect the installation of factory-built housing. The law provides that any person who violates any of its provisions and other specified law is guilty of a misdemeanor, as specified. This bill would revise these provisions, among other things, to authorize a quality assurance agency to also perform an installation inspection of factory-built housing, at the choice of a first user, after the department adopts regulations regarding the requirements for a quality assurance agency to perform these inspections. The bill would require the department to adopt those regulations by January 1, 2029. The bill would set the maximum fees that a local enforcement agency is authorized to impose for the inspection or permitting of factory-built housing, and prohibit a local enforcement agency from imposing fees under certain circumstances. The bill would prohibit a quality assurance agency or a local enforcement agency from disassembling, damaging, or destroying factory-built housing while inspecting the installation. The bill would make conforming changes and define terms for its purposes. By increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) 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. (3) 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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. That law requires the planning agency of a city or county to provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to, among other entities, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, formerly known as the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development that includes, among other specified information, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle, as specified. The Planning and Zoning Law also provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. This bill would require a city or county that has an accessory dwelling unit ordinance to submit as part of their annual report the code section where that ordinance is located and the date the ordinance was enacted or most recently updated. By increasing the scope of data required to be reported in the annual report, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the State Building Standards Code, and other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes an officer, employee, or agent of an enforcement agency to enter and inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the State Housing Law, the building standards published in the State Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the provisions of the State Housing Law. Existing law provides certain immunities to a public entity or employee immunity relative to an inspection or license, as provided. This bill would require a city, including a charter city, county, or city and county, except as specified, to offer a homeowner or contractor, as described, the option of requesting remote inspections for all or a subset of an inspection required by a building permit for specified works in one- or 2-family dwelling units, by either January 1, 2028, or July 1, 2028, as provided. The bill would authorize these local agencies to adopt reasonable protocols governing the technical conduct of a remote inspection, as specified. The bill would apply the above-described immunities to remote inspections. The bill would authorize these local agencies to temporarily ban the homeowner or contractor from using the remote inspection if a homeowner is found to have willfully misrepresented the work, as provided. By imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 a specified reason.
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency or state agency to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency or state agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application, as specified. This bill would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review. The bill would authorize a local agency or state agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency or state agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency or state agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency or state agency before the local agency or state agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency or state agency. The bill would require the local agency or state agency to notify the applicant of the tolling, as specified. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency or state agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency or state agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency or state agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) 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. (6) This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 65589.5 of the Government Code proposed by SB 1072 to be operative only if this bill and SB 1072 are enacted and this bill is enacted last. (7) 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 a specified reason.
Existing law, the Permit Streamlining Act, requires a public agency to determine whether an application for a development project is complete within specified time periods, as specified. The act requires a public agency that is the lead agency for a development project to approve or disapprove that project within specified time periods. Existing law, the California Emergency Services Act, among other things, authorizes the governing body of a city, county, or city and county to proclaim a local emergency under certain circumstances, as specified, and grants political subdivisions various powers and authorities in periods of local emergency. This bill would require a city, county, or city and county to approve or deny a complete application, within 10 business days of receipt of the application, for a building permit or an equivalent permit for any of the specified structures intended to be used by a person until the rebuilding or repair of an affected property is complete. By imposing new duties on local agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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. 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 a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, provides for the creation by local ordinance, or by ministerial approval if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single-family or multifamily dwelling residential use in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law also provides for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in single-family residential zones in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law, the Davis-Stirling Common Interest Development Act, among other things, makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that 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 that meets the above-described standards and conditions for those units. This bill would revise the provision governing prohibitions or restrictions on the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use to instead apply to a lot zoned to allow single-family residential use. Other existing law also generally makes void and unenforceable any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in real property 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 that meets the above-described standards and conditions for those units. This bill would similarly revise that provision to instead apply to a lot zoned to allow single-family residential use. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application within a residential or mixed-use zone to create certain accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, or any combination of those units, if specified conditions are met, including, among other things, requiring the ministerial approval of one detached, new construction, accessory dwelling unit that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, as specified. This bill would increase the number of detached, new construction, accessory dwelling units that a local agency is required to ministerially approve on lots with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling, as described above, to 2. However, the bill would expressly state that a local agency is not required to ministerially approve an application for a building permit to create a junior accessory dwelling unit on the same lot where 2 detached, new construction, accessory dwelling units have been constructed. By imposing new duties on local governments with respect to the approval of accessory dwelling units, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 a specified reason.
Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, among other things, provides for the creation by ordinance, or by ministerial approval if the local agency has not adopted an ordinance, of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) or a junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU) in accordance with specified standards and conditions. Existing law defines the term "junior accessory dwelling unit" for these purposes to mean a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family structure. This bill would revise the definition of a "junior accessory dwelling unit" to require the size of a JADU to be no more than 500 square feet of interior livable space. Existing law makes certain declarations of the Legislature's intent regarding the effect of an ADU ordinance. Existing law authorizes the Department of Housing and Community Development to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to implement uniform standards or criteria that supplement or clarify the terms, references, and standards for an ADU. This bill would revise the above-described declaration of legislative intent to additionally apply with respect to a JADU ordinance. The bill would also expand the department's authority to review, adopt, amend, or repeal guidelines to additionally grant that authority with respect to terms, references, and standards for JADUs. Existing law requires a local agency to submit an ADU ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after the adoption for department review, as specified. Under existing law, the standards applicable to an ADU under these provisions supersede a conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. This bill would similarly require a local agency to submit a JADU ordinance to the department within 60 days after adoption for department review and would require the department to notify the local agency if the ordinance is noncompliant with JADU ordinance requirements, as specified. The bill would nullify and void that ordinance if the local agency fails to submit a copy of that ordinance or respond to the department's findings that the ordinance is noncompliant, as specified. The bill would also specify that the standards applicable to a JADU supersede any conflicting local ordinance, except as specified. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a permit application for an ADU or a JADU within 60 days, as specified. If a local agency has not adopted an ADU ordinance, existing law requires a permit application for an ADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision. Existing law prohibits a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than an ADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of ADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. If a local agency has not adopted a JADU ordinance, this bill would additionally require a permit application for a JADU to be considered pursuant to this ministerial approval provision, and would prohibit a local ordinance, policy, or regulation, other than a JADU ordinance consistent with the laws governing approvals of JADUs, from being the basis for the delay or denial of a building permit or a use permit under this ministerial approval provision. This bill would additionally require a permitting agency to determine whether an application for ADU or JADU is complete and provide written notice of the determination not later than 15 business days after the permitting agency received the application. If the permitting agency determines that an application is incomplete, the bill would require the permitting agency to provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete in the written notice and authorize the applicant to cure and address the application, as specified. The bill would require the permitting agency, if a permit application is determined to be incomplete or is denied, to provide a process for the applicant to appeal that decision, as provided, and would require the permitting agency to provide a final written determination by not later than 60 business days after receipt of the written appeal. Existing law imposes limits on construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on an ADU, including prohibiting impact fees upon the development of an ADU based on if the ADU is 750 square feet and requiring that any impact fee on an ADU of 750 square feet or more be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law prohibits a local agency, special district, or water corporation from requiring the applicant to install a new or separate utility connection between an ADU and the utility or imposing a related connection fee or capacity charge for specified ADUs, except as specified. This bill would revise these provisions to additionally apply to construction, connection, and impact fees and capacity charges imposed on a JADU. The bill would revise the above-described limitation on impact fees to, instead, prohibit impact fees upon the development of an ADU that has 750 square feet of interior livable space or less or JADU that has 500 square feet of interior livable space or less, and to require that any impact fee on an ADU that has more than 750 square feet of interior livable space be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. Existing law authorizes the governing board of a school district to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against construction within the boundaries of the school district for the purpose of funding the construction or reconstruction of a school facility, subject to specified limitations. Under existing law, the fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement may only apply to specified constructions, including residential construction if the resulting assessable space exceeds 500 square feet. This bill would specify that an ADU or a JADU that contains less than 500 square feet of interior livable space does not increase assessable space by 500 square feet under these provisions. Existing law prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance a maximum square footage for an attached or detached ADU that is either less than 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet for an ADU that provides more than one bedroom. Existing law also prohibits a local agency from establishing by ordinance any requirement for a zoning clearance or separate zoning review or any other minimum or maximum size for an ADU, size based upon a percentage of the proposed or existing primary dwelling, or limits on lot coverage, floor area ratio, open space, front setbacks, and minimum lot size, for attached or detached dwellings that does not permit at least an 800-square foot ADU with four-foot side and rear yard setbacks. This bill would revise these size limitations to be based on the square feet of interior living space of the ADU. Existing law requires a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application within a residential or mixed-use zone for specified ADUs or JADUs, including one detached, new construction, ADU that does not exceed 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks for a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling. For these ADUs and JADUs, existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified height limitations and total floor area limitations of no more than 800 square feet. Existing law prohibits a local agency from imposing a requirement that an ADU install a fire sprinkler if a sprinkler is not required for the primary residence. This bill would require a local agency to ministerially approve a building permit application for a combination of the specified ADUs or JADUs and revise the total area limitation to be based on the square feet of interior livable space. The bill would revise the prohibition on requiring fire sprinkler installation, as described above, to additionally apply to a JADU. This bill would make other technical and conforming changes to the provisions governing the review and approval of ADUs and JADUs. By imposing additional duties on local planning officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 a specified reason.
