Public housing could lose its hillside slope tests under a DSA repeal

On a 16 percent slope, the 2025 California Building Code still hands a publicly funded walk-up an out. If the terrain clears the right thresholds, only a share of the ground-floor units has to be fully adaptable and on an accessible route — as few as 20 percent. A proposed rule would take that option off the table.

Here's the thing: the out isn't buried in a footnote. It's a named section — CBC 11B-233.3.1.2.6, "Public housing facility site impracticality" — and the Division of the State Architect has proposed to repeal it whole. The proposal is Item 17-1 of DSA-AC 01/25, the accessibility rulemaking sent to the Building Standards Commission in August 2026.

What the three tests do today

Section 11B-233.3.1.2.6 applies to public housing in buildings without an elevator on sites with "difficult terrain conditions or unusual characteristics." It offers three tests that, when met, reduce how many ground-floor units must be adaptable and on an accessible route:

• Test No. 1 — Individual Building Test. Available only where the site has terrain over 15 percent slope; both the undisturbed and finished-grade slopes within 50 feet of the entrance must exceed 15 percent.
• Test No. 2 — Site Analysis Test. The minimum share of ground-floor units on an accessible route equals the percentage of buildable area with a natural grade under 10 percent slope — but in no case less than 20 percent.
• Test No. 3 — Unusual Characteristics Test. For state or federally designated floodplain or coastal high-hazard sites, where finished-grade elevation differs by more than 30 inches and 10 percent between the entrance and arrival points.

Default without a test: every ground-floor unit in a non-elevator building must be adaptable and on an accessible route. Pass Test No. 1 or Test No. 3 and that drops to a minimum of 20 percent; the rest get a reduced feature set — grab-bar backing, wider doors, reachable switches and outlets.

Verified against the live code text: the 2025 CBC still carries 11B-233.3.1.2.6 with the "minimum of 20 percent" floor, the "over 15 percent slope" trigger for Test No. 1, and the 30-inch/10-percent floodplain test — exactly as described.

The repeal is total — all five subsections

Item 17-1 doesn't trim the section. The Final Express Terms strike the whole thing: the parent 11B-233.3.1.2.6 and every subsection, .6.1 through .6.5 — the lobby-entrance rule, all three tests, and the "additional requirements" list for reduced units.

There's no unit-count carve-out. Disability Rights California asked DSA to limit the repeal to public housing of five or more units; DSA declined and made no change. Its reasoning: 5-or-more-unit public housing cannot use the Fair Housing Act tests because the HUD Deeming Notice doesn't allow it; and public housing of any size, including four units, is bound by Title II of the ADA, which requires each facility to be accessible unless structurally impracticable (28 CFR §35.151). In DSA's words, "There is no number of units in public housing where site impracticality is permitted or applicable."

DSA's answer to cost: pick a flatter site

CALBO argued the repeal would carry a financial impact, since site impracticality could still serve ground-floor units in projects under 15 units. DSA's reply leans on the Deeming Notice principle that "if a site cannot be made accessible to individuals with disabilities, it must not be selected." Site selection is a choice, it says, so it sees no presumed cost increase — and it points varied-terrain multifamily toward private development, which keeps the FHA tests.

The disputed edge: Pacific Palisades

The sharpest objection came from the Industry Coalition. It warned that a new reference to "state support" in the Public Housing definition — pointing to CCR Title 2 §14020 — would widen who counts as public housing and, combined with this repeal, make steep-slope rebuilds, such as those in the recent Pacific Palisades fire area, financially or physically infeasible.

DSA pushed back: "privately-funded housing that is not a public accommodation or receiving state or federal support are not public housing, and are not subject to the requirements of CBC Chapter 11B." The two sides don't agree on where the line falls. If your rebuild touches any public program or state or federal support, confirm its funding and support status before assuming the tests still apply.

It's proposed — not adopted

This is a challenged item. On the Commission's accessibility action matrix it sits on the yellow (contested) paper, where the Code Advisory Committee recorded "Approve" and the agency "Accept," over disapprovals from the Industry Coalition, CALBO, Eric McSwain, and Dan Miller. As of this writing, no recorded Commission adoption action is confirmed. Don't rebuild your checklist around the repeal yet — but don't bank on the slope tests surviving, either.

What to do now

If you have a publicly funded hillside or floodplain project in a non-elevator building, run grading and entrance-elevation strategy at feasibility — don't pencil a 20 percent adaptable count off a slope test that may be gone. Confirm the adopted text with your local jurisdiction. And note the scope: this repeal touches only Chapter 11B. The separate FHA-based tests at §1150A, for privately funded covered multifamily dwellings under HCD, are a different provision this rulemaking doesn't amend.

What CrossBeam does with it

CrossBeam reviews a plan set against the code in force today and flags where a pending change like this one would move the line — so a publicly funded walk-up on a slope gets its adaptable-unit count and accessible-route questions surfaced while the grading is still on paper. When the Commission acts, the repeal is ready to apply the moment your jurisdiction adopts it.