AB-2533 - Proposed rule to exempt certain unpermitted construction from inspection

[iOne]

Ok, interesting, what could go wrong?

AB-2533 proposes to replace building code with Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code,
for unpermitted units. You'd thus have a new pathway to building units first without plumbing, mechanical or electrical permits or inspections,
then later applying Section 17920.3

(f) Upon receiving an application to permit a previously unpermitted accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit constructed before January 1, 2020, an inspector from the local agency may inspect the unit for compliance with health and safety standards and provide recommendations to comply with health and safety standards necessary to obtain a permit.

Bill Text - AB-2533 Accessory dwelling units: junior accessory dwelling units: unpermitted developments.

 

[arwat23]

AB-2533 proposes to replace building code with Section 17920.3 of the California Health and Safety Code,
for unpermitted units. You'd thus have a new pathway to building units first without plumbing, mechanical or electrical permits or inspections,
then later applying Section 17920.3

I'm running on basically no sleep, so apologies if I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this change only affect units built prior to 2020? This section would not seem to apply to unpermitted ADUs/JADUs built today. I also don't really see how this replaces Title 24, although maybe my sleep-deprived mind is missing something...

 

[iOne]

I'm running on basically no sleep, so apologies if I'm reading this wrong, but doesn't this change only affect units built prior to 2020?

Correct, this version of the bill applies to 2020 and prior unpermitted units, presuming proof of illegal construction can be established. Those units would have the relaxed inspection standards.

An interesting question is if this would embolden the creation of new unpermitted units, in hopes that the 2020 date would be brought forward by future less prominent legislation.

Note I work in a City which has since at least the mid 1960's turned a blind eye to no-permit residential additions and conversion activity, but then enforces quite heavily if there's a renter dispute. At that point the renter's tenancy is protected, and fines are assessed for the unpermitted construction until it can be corrected.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Aside from the idiocy of the concept in general, I zeroed in on this part:

. . . and provide recommendations to comply with health and safety standards necessary to obtain a permit.

In legal (and statutory, and code) parlance, "recommendations" are not mandatory. They are optional -- i.e. suggestions. So you go out to look at a unit, you "recommend" that the occupants install a bathroom and a kitchen, and they say, "Thanks, but we can't afford it. Gimme my permit."

(Actually, it's California, so they're probably more likely to say, "Gracias, pero no podemos permitírnoslo. Dame mi permiso."

 

[iOne]

Aside from the idiocy of the concept in general, I zeroed in on this part:

For me it's "(c) The section shall not apply to a building that is deemed substandard pursuant to Section 17920.3 of the Health and Safety Code."

Law section

This one is interesting:
"(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."

Which might exempt secondary units from fire separation, though maybe not if it's an increased occupancy.


Either way this law looks more like a tangle than the untangle the authors probably intended.

 

[Joe.B]

I think it's important to note that this is under "Title 7 Planning and Land Use" section of the government code. This is another law that will limit planning department's (as an arm of council/public) ability to inhibit growth... At least I think that's the intent...

 

[iOne]

This is another law that will limit planning department's (as an arm of council/public) ability to inhibit growth... At least I think that's the intent...

Correct. It's a State preemption on rules that would prevent residential intensification.
Though in this particular case people have been adding unpermitted in-law units for decades, just about everywhere, because there's been no legal pathway to do so.

Pretending those units don't exist does not help anyone, and is dangerous in the case of Fire/EMS response.