In the late 1970s, California was among several states looking
for ways to ease the rising cost of new homes. At the time,
the states regulatory barriers to widespread use of manufactured
housing effectively suppressed this alternative form of construction.
According to Steve Hullibarger, the president of a manufactured
housing consulting firm in California, in the following decade,
the state legislature began enacting a series of laws designed
to remove unreasonable barriers to the placement of qualifying
manufactured homes in both urban and rural neighborhoods.
By establishing certain standards, qualifying manufactured
homes were deemed compatible with existing neighborhoods,
and new home buyers were given more affordable housing choices.
The first key statute, Government
Code §65852.3, was enacted in 1980. Cities and counties
were required to issue building permits to applicants wanting
to place visually compatible manufactured homes on any lot,
with minor and insignificant exceptions. The law is effective
in the sense that it does not mandate quantitative specifications,
only that elements of the home must match the architectural
context of the street. Development minimums, such as setbacks,
apply as they would to a site-built home. Eventually, several
other laws were enacted to address problems that arose after
1980.
Hullibarger said that developers and builders approached
manufacturers capable of providing the many cost and speed
advantages inherent in factory construction. In response,
California manufacturers started changing their homes' characteristics,
away from the familiar "doublewide," and toward
traits more common to site-built homes: interior layouts,
garage adaptability, more complex exterior articulations,
and a wider variety of roofing and exterior materials.
New manufactured homes - built by for-profit and nonprofit
developers - have expanded buying opportunities for thousands
of Californians who might otherwise have been left behind
in the rising home cost crunch.
Over the years, as land was developed and platted, it was
common for restrictive covenants to include boilerplate language
forbidding the placement of most any type of factory-constructed
dwelling in the subdivision. Inasmuch as these deed restrictions
are a private matter between buyers and sellers of property,
it was rare that an existing restriction on manufactured homes
would be successfully overturned in court.
The California legislature decided in 1987 that any new California
Code & Regulations language, for those recorded after
that date, would be unenforceable with respect to barring
manufactured homes. In effect, manufactured homes could no
more be discriminated against than any particular class of
persons.
The application of these laws was uneven in the state. Some
local jurisdictions sought to discourage development that
included manufactured homes by forcing applicants to run a
gamut of bureaucratic processes. Coming to the rescue, the
state enacted what became Government
Code §65852.4, which requires equal permit application
processes for site-built and manufactured homes.
To increase the efficiency with which governmental agencies
can use manufactured homes in public housing or redevelopment,
Government
Code §18062.8 permits public agencies to directly
acquire homes from the manufacturers when providing housing
for low- and moderate-income households. This eliminates the
need to buy the homes through a dealer or middleman.
Finally, recognizing that more and more manufactured homes
were being used by developers as a substitute for onsite construction,
the legislature enacted Government
Code §18062.9, giving licensed contractors conditional
direct access to the homes from the factories.
"Over time," Hullibarger says, "These collective
roll-backs [of] unreasonable regulatory barriers encouraged
entrepreneurs to find and acquire vacant lots in most of California's
larger cities. Many of these lots were formerly considered
unbuildable, because of the high cost of constructing one
entry-level home at a time, and because of the exposure to
many risks inherent in urban areas."
Some of these entrepreneurs pointed out to local governments
that they do not check the HUD-approved construction plans
for manufactured homes, nor do they undertake several steps
of inspection. Some local governments have responded by significantly
reducing permit fees, and plan-check fees in particular, for
manufactured home installation permits. In an entry-level
house, this constitutes a measurable savings.
According to the California Manufactured Housing Institute,
one third of new manufactured homes in 2004 were sited in
subdivisions and urban infill locations, thus making them
a competitive option to stick-built housing in urban settings.
This is a significant departure from typical siting of manufactured
homes in the rest of the country. In no other state do regulations
favor the urban use of manufactured homes to the extent they
do in California.
The real winners in this quarter-century trend have been
first-time home buyers who formerly had few living choices
other than renting. For many of these families, a second fortuitous
event took place when the time came to sell and move on. It
is now clear that the market will value a manufactured home
that matches the aesthetic context of its neighborhood at
the same price as it would value a site-built home. And for
many who were able to save money at the time of their initial
purchase, the return on their investment has been even sweeter.
 Code
Reforms Aid Rehabilitation Efforts
|
In October, we posted an article about ongoing efforts
to modify building code requirements that affect the rehabilitation
of existing housing. Rehab is, of course, a viable strategy
for preserving and expanding a community's affordable
housing stock. In the past, however, burdensome regulatory
requirements often discouraged rehab by making it cost-prohibitive.
In 2003, reform efforts championed by the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and implemented
by several individual states resulted in promulgation
of the International Code Council's (ICC) International
Existing Building Code (IEBC). "This code,"
says ICC Manager of Standards Ed Wirtschoreck, "allows
communities to safeguard the public and improve existing
building stock, without mandating the requirements (and
expense) of new construction." In this follow-on
article, we examine how the IEBC's code requirements are
proportional to the amount of work proposed. Further,
the new code delineates the difference between repairs,
alterations, and changes of occupancy. The code also addresses
requirements affecting additions and historic houses.
Repair
According to Chapter 4 of the 2003 Code, repair is
"the restoration to good or sound condition any
part of an existing building for the purpose of its
maintenance" (Sec. 202). Building officials can
permit contractors to use materials similar to existing
materials, even if those are not permitted by other
building codes. For example, an owner wishes to patch
plaster walls in a structure but not undertake other
work. Under this section of the IEBC, the code official
can permit the owner to patch the walls using like materials,
even if those materials would not meet code requirements
for new construction.
Alterations
The drafting committee expanded the term "alteration"
by providing three levels of alterations and adjusting
code requirements based on the amount of work anticipated.
Level 1 alterations, described in Chapter 5 of the new
code, involve removing and replacing an element that
serves the same purpose. For example, if a builder wants
to remove old doors and replace them with new doors,
the builder would have to ensure that the new doors
meet code requirements. For this level of work, however,
the code does not require the builder to bring "life
safety" activities, such as installing fire protection
systems, partially or completely enclosing vertical
openings, replacing unsafe interior finishes, or ensuring
adequate means of egress, into compliance with the current
building code.
Chapter 6 describes Level 2 alterations as those that
involve reconfiguring space, adding or removing doors
or windows, extending systems or installing additional
equipment. For example, a builder proposes to relocate
a door or create a new door opening. He or she would
need to ensure that any work that affects structural,
electrical, or plumbing systems complies with the applicable
code. The builder would not have to bring the entire
structure into compliance with the new construction
code.
The IEBC classifies work that affects more than 50
percent of the aggregate area of the building as a Level
3 alteration. ICC regulations for this level of work
are contained in Chapter 7 of the IEBC. Owners planning
such extensive work are required to meet a number of
additional requirements. The local building official
may require improvements to the building's structural
systems, life safety systems, and mechanical, plumbing,
and electrical systems.
Change of Occupancy
Many owners and builders are considering the conversion
of non-residential structures to residential structures,
or are seeking to change the density of a current residence.
For example, a recent article in Breakthroughs
described the conversion
of a motel into affordable housing. The ICC defines
this type of activity as a "Change of Occupancy."
In these cases, Chapter 8 of the IEBC contains a formula
of "hazard indices" that can be used to determine
the level of risk to new occupants. The higher the risk,
the more fire safety requirements apply. Say there's
an owner who wishes to convert a single-family home
into a multi-unit apartment. The code may require that
the owner provide additional means of exiting the building
in case of a fire. Depending on the extent of construction,
the building code requirements in Chapters 6 and 7 for
building structure, electrical, and plumbing elements
would also apply. However, not all changes of occupancy
require extensive egress reconstruction. Should an owner
wish to convert a commercial structure into multifamily
housing, many of the egress requirements for the commercial
structure could apply to the multifamily use. The owner
would be able to use existing egress, thereby reducing
the costs of rehabilitation.
Additions, Historical Structures, and Relocated
Buildings
The IEBC also provides contractors and code officials
with guidance on adding space and rehabilitating historic
structures. Owners proposing to add space to an existing
structure must abide by the new construction sections
of the ICC codes. Chapter 9 of the IEBC defines "addition"
as an extension or increase in floor area, number of
stories, or height of a building. The code also provides
guidance in the rehabilitation of historic buildings.
Chapter 10 recognizes the need to maintain the historic
nature of the building while ensuring the safety of
those using the building.
The code also addresses structures that owners have
moved from one site to another. While the IEBC does
not define the term "relocated or moved buildings,"
owners must follow requirements for location on the
lot and the foundation that are found in the International
Building Code or the International Residential Code.
Alternative Compliance Mechanisms
The IEBC also allows owners to comply with its provisions
by using alternative methods that are described in Chapter
12 of the Code. The building code official uses a formula
to assign a score based on the existing condition of
the building and any proposed improvements. She then
compares that score to minimum scores for fire, egress,
and general safety, and can authorize work where the
building and project score is above the minimum standard.
Should the score be below the minimum, then the building
official can recommend, or the owner can propose, additional
work to bring the score up to the predefined minimum
score.
Conclusion
Economic viability is an important consideration when
contemplating improvements or repairs to older or damaged
structures, or when attempting a change of occupancy
from commercial to residential use. The goal of code
reform efforts (which have now culminated in the IEBC)
is to reduce costs and encourage rehabilitation and
redevelopment, while protecting the safety of those
occupying the units. Preliminary results from New Jersey's
efforts indicate that rehabilitation activity has increased.
If this trend continues and the use of the IEBC encourages
redevelopment elsewhere, then older homes will continue
to provide a valuable source of habitation - and architectural
history - for years to come.
Note: This article does not include an exhaustive
review of the International Existing Building Code and
all of the requirements contained in the Code. Builders
and owners are strongly encouraged to talk to local
codes officials before planning work on existing structures.
|
|
