SB 904 instructs the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) to produce near-term reports identifying state permitting rules and parts of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) that could be suspended to speed reconstruction after wildfires that cause substantial structural damage. The bill also directs HCD to coordinate with local governments on rapid‑permitting procedures—targeting issuance within 30 days—and requires periodic updates to those reports.
Separately, SB 904 requires state agencies and local permitting authorities engaged in postdisaster response to accept electronic submissions (web portals, email/PDF, e-signatures, digital plan sets) for recovery‑related applications unless electronic filing is technically infeasible. The measure contains narrow thresholds, timelines, and an exemption for very small counties, and creates potential state‑mandated local costs subject to reimbursement rules.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes HCD produce time‑boxed reports (30–60 day windows) recommending which state permitting rules and which Title 24 provisions could be suspended for narrowly defined rebuild projects after a large wildfire, and to push local governments toward 30‑day permitting. It also compels affected agencies and political subdivisions to accept electronic filings for recovery actions, subject to limited exceptions.
Who It Affects
State agencies that set or enforce permitting and building standards (HCD, DGS, OSFM, CEC), county and city permitting offices, builders and contractors working on post‑fire reconstruction, architects and plan‑submittal vendors, and homeowners whose properties were destroyed by wildfire.
Why It Matters
SB 904 creates a structured, time‑sensitive pathway to identify regulatory bottlenecks and to operationalize electronic intake after a wildfire. For compliance officers and local officials, it changes expectations about turnaround times, digital filing infrastructure, interagency consultation, and potential state‑mandated costs.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 904 activates two parallel tracks when the Governor declares a state of emergency for a wildfire. First, it tasks HCD with rapidly auditing regulatory obstacles and producing recommendations to accelerate rebuilding.
That work is triggered only if the Office of Emergency Services (OES) issues a written finding within 10 days that the fire destroyed “substantial” structures — defined in the bill as 25 or more residential or commercial buildings. Once triggered, HCD must deliver an initial permitting‑barrier report within 30 days and a separate review of Title 24 provisions within 60 days, then continue to update its findings every 60 days as recovery proceeds.
The Title 24 review is narrowly focused: HCD and its consulting agencies must identify code provisions that could be suspended for repair, demolition, or replacement projects that sit in substantially the same location and do not exceed 110 percent of the original footprint or height. HCD is also required to coordinate with local governments to recommend procedural changes—such as preapproved plans or targeted waivers—aimed at issuing all necessary permits within 30 days of submission, and to report those recommendations on the same 60‑day cadence.Second, SB 904 creates a mandatory electronic‑filing rule for recovery work.
Any state agency or political subdivision involved in debris removal, reconstruction, housing, land‑use permitting, or postdisaster response must accept electronic applications, plan sets, appeals, and related documents via web portals, email/PDF, e‑signatures (consistent with UETA), or digital drawing files. Agencies can require a paper filing only if they document, in writing, that electronic filing is technically infeasible for a given application type and must post that determination within 48 hours.
Agencies must also publish filing instructions and support contacts within 30 days of the emergency declaration. Counties with populations under 100,000 (and cities inside them) are exempt from the electronic‑filing requirement.Throughout, SB 904 is written as a reporting and facilitation statute rather than an immediate grant of power to suspend laws.
HCD’s role is to identify candidates for suspension and recommend local procedural updates; the bill does not itself automatically nullify specific statutes or codes. The bill also contemplates interagency consultation (listing DGS, the State Fire Marshal, the State Energy Commission, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and OES in various roles) and allows HCD to incorporate existing governmental reports into its submissions to the Governor and Legislature.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Office of Emergency Services must issue a written determination within 10 days of the Governor’s wildfire emergency to trigger HCD’s special reporting duties.
The bill defines “substantial structural damage requiring significant rebuilding efforts” as destruction of 25 or more residential or commercial structures.
Title 24 recommendations are limited to projects that remain in substantially the same location and do not exceed 110 percent of the pre‑fire footprint or height.
HCD must deliver an initial permitting‑barrier report within 30 days and a Title 24 review within 60 days, then update reports every 60 days as recovery proceeds.
Affected state agencies and political subdivisions must accept electronic filings for recovery‑related applications unless they make and publicly post a written, 48‑hour justification that electronic filing is technically infeasible; counties with fewer than 100,000 residents are exempt.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Trigger: OES written determination and damage threshold
This subsection makes HCD’s expedited duties conditional on a short, administrable trigger: OES must issue a written determination within 10 days that the wildfire caused “substantial structural damage,” which the bill quantifies as 25+ destroyed residential or commercial structures. Practically, that channels HCD’s resources to larger incidents and creates a clear cutoff for when the accelerated review and reporting regime applies.
Rapid reports on permitting obstacles and Title 24 provisions
HCD must produce two time‑bound products: a permitting‑requirements report within 30 days identifying state rules that may unduly impede rebuilding, and a Title 24 review within 60 days recommending code provisions that could be suspended for eligible projects. The statute lists interagency consultation partners (DGS, State Fire Marshal, State Energy Commission and others), which makes these reports multi‑disciplinary. HCD must update these reports every 60 days, creating a rolling accountability mechanism tied to recovery progress.
Local coordination and a 30‑day permit goal
HCD must coordinate with local governments to recommend procedural fixes—examples the bill mentions include preapproved plans and targeted waivers—designed to issue all necessary permits within 30 days of submission. The provision is programmatic: it sets a performance objective rather than imposing a hard administrative deadline on local permitting offices, but it does create a state expectation and an obligation to report recommended local procedural changes to the Legislature and Governor.
Mandatory electronic filing for recovery applications
This section requires any state agency or political subdivision involved in postdisaster activities to accept electronic submissions for recovery‑related filings, and it enumerates acceptable features (web portals, email/PDF, UETA‑compliant e‑signatures, and digital plan sets). Agencies can opt out for specific application types only after a written technical infeasibility finding that must be publicly posted within 48 hours. Agencies must also publish filing methods, file formats, and contact support within 30 days of the emergency declaration. The section excludes counties with populations under 100,000 (and cities within those counties).
State‑mandated local program and reimbursement pathway
By imposing new duties on local governments—chiefly the electronic‑filing requirement—the bill creates a potential state‑mandated local program. The text invokes the Commission on State Mandates process and the statutory reimbursement framework; if the Commission finds the bill creates reimbursable costs, affected local entities may receive funding under existing reimbursement law.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Homeowners and property owners in major wildfire zones — faster permit pathways and focused recommendations for code suspensions aim to reduce time and cost to rebuild similar homes on existing footprints.
- Contractors and small builders engaged in reconstruction — clearer expectations for electronic submittals and the push for 30‑day permit turnarounds can shorten project timelines and lower holding costs.
- Design professionals and plan‑set vendors that adopt digital workflows — the bill standardizes and normalizes digital plan submission and e‑signatures, creating sustained demand for digital services and preapproved plan templates.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local permitting agencies and county IT shops — required to accept electronic filings, publish instructions within 30 days, and support applicants; smaller jurisdictions may face upfront technology, staffing, or vendor costs.
- State agencies (HCD, DGS, OSFM, CEC) — must provide time‑sensitive reports and consult with many entities on short deadlines, increasing analytic and administrative workload.
- Homeowners and future occupants — if jurisdictions or the state act on code suspension recommendations, occupants may face altered energy, accessibility, or other standards that affect long‑term costs and safety; insurers and lenders may also adjust terms accordingly.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
SB 904 pits speed against standards and uniformity against local capacity: it seeks rapid reconstruction by identifying rules to suspend and by forcing digital intake, but doing so risks compromising established safety, energy, or accessibility standards and imposes significant operational and financial demands on agencies that must deliver on short deadlines without guaranteed funding.
The bill is primarily a reporting and facilitation statute; it instructs HCD to identify candidates for suspension and to recommend local procedural changes, but it does not itself suspend statutes or Title 24 provisions. That means the practical effect depends on subsequent executive or legislative action and on local adoption of recommended procedures.
Tight deadlines (10‑day damage trigger, 30‑ and 60‑day report windows, 30‑day permit goal) prioritize speed but place heavy operational pressure on HCD and partner agencies, which may lack pre‑positioned staffing or data systems to meet those timelines without new resources.
The electronic‑filing mandate standardizes intake but raises interoperability, security, and equity questions. The bill allows email/PDF submissions and recognizes UETA e‑signatures, which eases adoption, but it does not set statewide technical standards for plan file formats, minimum cybersecurity protections, or validation procedures—leaving significant implementation discretion to agencies and creating the risk of inconsistent applicant experiences.
The exemption for counties under 100,000 residents reduces burden on very small jurisdictions but creates geographic inconsistency in access to the streamlined processes SB 904 promotes.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.