AB 2533 - Exempts Structures from Building Code

Local Inspection Issues California Home Inspectors
1

I have deep concerns about a bill on the Governor’s desk, AB 2533, that would in effect exempt essentially all building code, for structures built before January 1st 2020.

All you’d have to do under this bill is claim your shanty was an accessory dwelling unit, and then all standards are off, except a list of habitability measures. While those habitability measures are fine, they were meant for controlling “low cost housing providers” (e.g. slumlords) in existing structures… not so much as new construction standards.

2

Thanks for bringing this to our attention… perusing the bill, I am a little less worried than you. I think all the CA law makers are trying to do is keep local planning departments and building inspectors from effectively thwarting the previous law (aimed at loosening overly-restrictive zoning) by spewing a ton of code requirements and impact fees on existing structures making it cost prohibitive to create an ADU. The State wants to keep the locals to a modest checklist of things that are health and safety related and/or elements that are truly “substandard.”

Although I personally do not like densification and what it does to neighborhoods, I understand the need to do something to make housing a bit more affordable…

3

I see this bill as failing to find the middle ground.

I do legalization and expert witness work both. And see really stupid stuff that’s objectively unsafe, but not covered by the limited health and safety exemption. I also end up with things that are fine, but an inch to narrow (stairways, setbacks). And deal with code requirements for fire that are well meaning, but imaginary in terms of a real fire scenario.

I don’t see balance in this bill. There’s already a requirement that you can build a new ADU on the footprint of any existing structure. My view: there was no need to create a pathway to doing everything wrong then seeking permission later. It’s also yet another law that means those who get permits and follow the rules take the brunt of the cost: and the fly by night flippers make out like bandits.

Note: I live in an area which turned a blind eye to illegal units for many decades. The area is so desirable that housing costs are through the roof: the only relief is those illegals rent for less. The density is already baked in. The only question is if that will remain under the table, be removed, or be bought above the table.

Other new local rules are causing people to quietly remove units: in particular a set of new rules that prohibit month to month leases, and a rule that says once you create a unit you can never remove it. Both lifetime commitments don’t work for many homeowners.

4

AB 2533, Juan Carrillo. Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units: unpermitted developments.

Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, authorizes a local agency, by ordinance or ministerial approval, to provide for the creation of accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for residential use, as specified. Existing law prohibits a local agency from denying a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit that was constructed before January 1, 2018, because the accessory dwelling unit is in violation of building standards or state or local standards applicable to accessory dwelling units, unless the local agency makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or the occupants of the structure. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a substandard building, as specified.

This bill would instead prohibit a local agency from denying a permit for an unpermitted accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that was constructed before January 1, 2020, for those violations, unless the local agency makes a finding that correcting the violation is necessary to comply with conditions that would otherwise deem a building substandard.

5

I do not think that over-crowded Berkeley, that was densified decades ago, is the problem they are targeting. They want lower-rent ADU’s to be built in Danville, for example. I do not know the specific rules in Danville, nor their politics (there does not seem to be a political divide on this as it passed the Senate with no opposing votes), I just know Danville is a nice place to live with nice-sized homes on bigger (what the rest of the country would consider normal) lots. If Danville happens to be fighting densification (which I could certainly sympathize with), that is who they are targeting. In which case, it would suck to be Danville.

For what you are describing, it sounds like Berkeley has the opposite problem. Years and years of lax code enforcement that has led to many structures with unsafe living conditions. This law says that Berkeley and every other municipality in CA are now required to develop and publish a checklist of minimum health and safety housing standards for ADUs. It seems like that a little standardization and clarity would help, as long as everyone enforces those basic standards.

6

It’s a State standard list Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code

§ 17920.3.

Any building or portion thereof including any dwelling unit, guestroom or suite of rooms, or the premises on which the same is located, in which there exists any of the following listed conditions to an extent that endangers the life, limb, health, property, safety, or welfare of the public or the occupants thereof shall be deemed and hereby is declared to be a substandard building:

(a) Inadequate sanitation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Lack of, or improper water closet, lavatory, or bathtub or shower in a dwelling unit.
(2) Lack of, or improper water closets, lavatories, and bathtubs or showers per number of guests in a hotel.
(3) Lack of, or improper kitchen sink.
(4) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a hotel.
(5) Lack of hot and cold running water to plumbing fixtures in a dwelling unit.
(6) Lack of adequate heating.
(7) Lack of, or improper operation of required ventilating equipment.
(8) Lack of minimum amounts of natural light and ventilation required by this code.
(9) Room and space dimensions less than required by this code.
(10) Lack of required electrical lighting.
(11) Dampness of habitable rooms.
(12) Infestation of insects, vermin, or rodents as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the infestation can be determined by a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, upon successful completion of a course of study in the appropriate subject matter as determined by the local jurisdiction.
(13) Visible mold growth, as determined by a health officer or a code enforcement officer, as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code, excluding the presence of mold that is minor and found on surfaces that can accumulate moisture as part of their properly functioning and intended use.
(14) General dilapidation or improper maintenance.
(15) Lack of connection to required sewage disposal system.
(16) Lack of adequate garbage and rubbish storage and removal facilities, as determined by a health officer or, if an agreement does not exist with an agency that has a health officer, the lack of adequate garbage and rubbish removal facilities can be determined by a code enforcement officer as defined in Section 829.5 of the Penal Code.

(b) Structural hazards shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Deteriorated or inadequate foundations.
(2) Defective or deteriorated flooring or floor supports.
(3) Flooring or floor supports of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety.
(4) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that split, lean, list, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
(5) Members of walls, partitions, or other vertical supports that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety.
(6) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members which sag, split, or buckle due to defective material or deterioration.
(7) Members of ceilings, roofs, ceiling and roof supports, or other horizontal members that are of insufficient size to carry imposed loads with safety.
(8) Fireplaces or chimneys which list, bulge, or settle due to defective material or deterioration.
(9) Fireplaces or chimneys which are of insufficient size or strength to carry imposed loads with safety.

(c) Any nuisance.

(d) All wiring, except that which conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation if it is currently in good and safe condition and working properly.

(e) All plumbing, except plumbing that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and has been maintained in good condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly, and that is free of cross connections and siphonage between fixtures.

(f) All mechanical equipment, including vents, except equipment that conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation and that has been maintained in good and safe condition, or that may not have conformed with all applicable laws in effect at the time of installation but is currently in good and safe condition and working properly.

(g) Faulty weather protection, which shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Deteriorated, crumbling, or loose plaster.
(2) Deteriorated or ineffective waterproofing of exterior walls, roofs, foundations, or floors, including broken windows or doors.
(3) Defective or lack of weather protection for exterior wall coverings, including lack of paint, or weathering due to lack of paint or other approved protective covering.
(4) Broken, rotted, split, or buckled exterior wall coverings or roof coverings.

(h) Any building or portion thereof, device, apparatus, equipment, combustible waste, or vegetation that, in the opinion of the chief of the fire department or his deputy, is in such a condition as to cause a fire or explosion or provide a ready fuel to augment the spread and intensity of fire or explosion arising from any cause.

(i) All materials of construction, except those that are specifically allowed or approved by this code, and that have been adequately maintained in good and safe condition.

(j) Those premises on which an accumulation of weeds, vegetation, junk, dead organic matter, debris, garbage, offal, rodent harborages, stagnant water, combustible materials, and similar materials or conditions constitute fire, health, or safety hazards.

(k) Any building or portion thereof that is determined to be an unsafe building due to inadequate maintenance, in accordance with the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code.

(l) All buildings or portions thereof not provided with adequate exit facilities as required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof whose exit facilities conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and that have been adequately maintained and increased in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy.

When an unsafe condition exists through lack of, or improper location of, exits, additional exits may be required to be installed.

(m) All buildings or portions thereof that are not provided with the fire-resistive construction or fire-extinguishing systems or equipment required by this code, except those buildings or portions thereof that conformed with all applicable laws at the time of their construction and whose fire-resistive integrity and fire-extinguishing systems or equipment have been adequately maintained and improved in relation to any increase in occupant load, alteration or addition, or any change in occupancy.

(n) All buildings or portions thereof occupied for living, sleeping, cooking, or dining purposes that were not designed or intended to be used for those occupancies.

(o) Inadequate structural resistance to horizontal forces.

“Substandard building” includes a building not in compliance with Section 13143.2. HSC § 13143.2 (Fire Code)

However, a condition that would require displacement of sound walls or ceilings to meet height, length, or width requirements for ceilings, rooms, and dwelling units shall not by itself be considered sufficient existence of dangerous conditions making a building a substandard building, unless the building was constructed, altered, or converted in violation of those requirements in effect at the time of construction, alteration, or conversion.

7

This particular bill has zero to do with new construction.

However if years ago Danville homeowner added a microwave and sink to a guest bedroom (in-law style) then rented it, existing law provides a Zoning exemption. This bill provides a building code exemption.

The surveys of illicit 2nd units show there are scads of them all over the State right now. Multiples per block. It’s frankly the law catching up to reality.

8

Thanks. Agreed. Looks like what the legislators are shooting for is a lower standard for existing buildings, or portions thereof, to ensure they are relatively safe and livable, meeting basic housing standards for (rental) occupancy. The opposite being “substandard” or unlivable. That is far different bar than having the owner bring everything up to current code, as well as pay all the substantial impact and processing fees, which I am sure has been the standard practice for many municipalities, not just the ones trying to resist. I agree this is the law catching up to reality, but I also think it is practical and common sense – something rare for CA.