Misplaced Pages

Draft:Sb 721: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 18:40, 6 January 2025 editDclemens1971 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers17,551 editsm Dclemens1971 moved page Sb 721 to Draft:Sb 721 without leaving a redirect: Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: more sources needed, language/grammar problems, possible COITag: moveToDraft← Previous edit Revision as of 18:40, 6 January 2025 edit undoDclemens1971 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers17,551 edits AFC draftTag: moveToDraftNext edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Draft article}}
{{Multiple issues| {{Multiple issues|
{{primary sources|date=January 2025}} {{primary sources|date=January 2025}}
Line 75: Line 76:
== References == == References ==
{{References|date=January 2025}} {{References|date=January 2025}}
{{Drafts moved from mainspace|date=January 2025}}

Revision as of 18:40, 6 January 2025

This is a draft article. It is a work in progress open to editing by anyone. Please ensure core content policies are met before publishing it as a live Misplaced Pages article.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Easy tools: Citation bot (help) | Advanced: Fix bare URLs · Article logs · Draft logs.


Last edited by Dclemens1971 (talk | contribs) 16 days ago. (Update) Finished drafting? Submit for review or Publish now
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article relies excessively on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources.
Find sources: "Sb 721" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject. Please help improve the article by providing more context for the reader. (January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)

California Senate Bill 721 of 2018

In 2018, California introduced Senate Bill 721 (SB 721), which requires regular inspections of exterior elevated elements (EEEs) like balconies, decks, stairways, and walkways in multifamily residential buildings. The bill aims to prevent accidents caused by structural failures of these elements, which have, in some cases, led to serious injuries and fatalities.


Background

The law came about in response to several tragic events, including the 2015 Berkeley balcony collapse, where multiple people lost their lives. To help prevent similar incidents, SB 721 requires that exterior elevated elements in buildings with three or more residential units undergo regular checks and maintenance.


Inspection Requirements

Inspections must be carried out by qualified professionals such as licensed architects, structural engineers, or certified building inspectors. The first inspection is due by January 1, 2025, with subsequent inspections taking place every six years. These inspections focus on the safety and structural integrity of exterior elevated elements, including checks for proper waterproofing and any other potential hazards.


Scope and Applicability

Properties Covered

SB 721 applies to buildings with three or more multifamily units.

Exemptions

However, some buildings, such as condominiums managed by homeowners associations (HOAs), are not subject to this bill. These properties fall under the guidelines of Senate Bill 326 (SB 326), which has similar requirements for inspections of exterior elevated elements.


Property Owners' Responsibilities

Ensuring Compliance

Property owners must ensure they hire qualified professionals to carry out the inspections as required by the law.

Maintaining Records and Addressing Issues

Owners also need to keep records of inspection reports for at least two cycles and promptly fix any issues that are flagged during inspections. If a serious hazard is identified, owners must act quickly and inform the appropriate authorities.


Financial Implications

Cost Estimates

The estimated costs of inspections under SB 721 vary depending on the size of the building. Below is a breakdown of the costs based on building size:

Building Size Estimated Cost
Small (3-10 units) $2,000 – $4,000
Medium (11-50 units) $5,000 – $10,000
Large (50+ units) $10,000+

Penalties for Non-Compliance

Fines and Liens

Property owners who fail to comply with the inspection requirements may face civil penalties

and could have a lien placed on their property.

Enforcement

Local enforcement agencies are responsible for ensuring compliance and may issue corrective notices if repairs are not made within the designated timeframe.


Conclusion

SB 721 is an important step in improving safety standards for multifamily buildings in California. Property owners need to be proactive in following these regulations, not only for the safety of their tenants but also to avoid legal and financial penalties.

References

This article does not cite any sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Find sources: "Sb 721" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (January 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

  1. "SB 721- CHAPTERED". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
Category:
Draft:Sb 721: Difference between revisions Add topic