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

Senators Wahab and Richardson frame a two-track approach to disaster-related housing reconstruction that blends protections for residents in common-interest developments with a statewide, optional ministerial pathway for rebuilds, all anchored in objective standards and timebound processes. The core shift is to remove covenants or governing-document provisions that effectively bar substantially similar reconstruction after a disaster, while offering a parallel, faster-track option for housing projects rebuilt under clearly defined standards. The proposal also includes a temporary limit on local ordinances that would preclude interim housing options during reconstruction for three years following a declared disaster, and positions the pathway as an optional addition to existing environmental review provisions.

On the civil-code side, the bill creates new provisions that void covenants, restrictions, and governing-document rules that prohibit or effectively prohibit a substantially similar reconstruction of a damaged residential structure. It defines disaster in broad terms linked to state, federal, or local declarations and establishes criteria for what counts as substantially similar reconstruction, including conformity with the local building code, a livable interior area not exceeding 110 percent of pre-disaster space, and exterior dimensions or setbacks (including a four-foot minimum setback) with height limits that cap at 110 percent of pre-disaster height or align with governing documents, whichever is greater. It also permits recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees for prevailing owners enforcing these rights. A parallel new framework for covenants or restrictions that require review by an association or similar body sets out completeness determinations within 30 days, cure options for incomplete submissions, and a 45‑day window to assess complete applications, with an appeals process and a final written determination within 60 days of an appeal.

The government-code track establishes an optional streamlined, ministerial process for housing developments rebuilt after disasters, subject to objective standards that are verifiable and non-discretionary. Eligible projects must be located on a parcel where a residential structure was destroyed or damaged, be owned by the applicant at the time of the disaster, and comply with labor standards described in existing state law. The process allows waivers of certain objective standards to enable construction up to 110 percent of the pre-disaster square footage and permits alignment with alternative objective land-use specifications such as overlay zones or density-bonus frameworks, provided consistency with the general plan can be demonstrated when standards conflict. Local governments must approve eligible proposals within a 90-day window if they determine consistency, and they must document any conflicts with standards with specified timelines; if documentation is not provided, the proposal is deemed to satisfy the standards. The bill also suspends enforcement of certain ordinances prohibiting temporary housing on damaged parcels for three years and clarifies that the streamlined path is optional and does not replace other CEQA exemptions, although it could expand ministerial exemptions when invoked.

Together, the provisions create a two-track reconstruction regime: a private-rights and HOA governance track for substantially similar rebuilds under civil-code safeguards, and a statewide, optional ministerial pathway for disaster-related housing that emphasizes objective standards, time-bound decisions, and labor-compliance requirements. The package interacts with existing law through references to the Davis-Stirling framework for common-interest communities, labor standards embedded in existing statutes, and the CEQA exemption structure, while signaling a state-mandated-local-program dynamic through required timelines and documentation. Local governments, housing developers, homeowners, and associations face new procedural demands, potential cost implications, and clarified routes to expedite or challenge decisions within defined, limited pathways.