Rationalizing Building Codes in California
This post is an open letter to California Assembly Members Schulz, Rivas, Haney and Wicks, in response to their recently proposed bill AB 306, which proposes to stop all jurisdictions from filing local updates to state or green building codes until 2031.
Dear Authors and Principal Co-authors of AB 306,
I write as a constituent and fan of your excellent efforts to progress housing issues for all. I’m also an architect based in San Francisco whose career has been devoted to exploring, promoting and implementing pathways for all to build better. (Founder of: Mt Diablo Habitat for Humanity Women’s Crew; Passive House California and Passive House Network.)
I was surprised to see your support of AB 306, which proposes to halt the adoption of new building codes until 2031 - the effective implementation date of the scheduled 2028 T-24 energy code update. While I empathize with the sentiment to stabilize the ever-shifting maze of codes continually foisted upon our industry, I strongly believe that halting their progress is NOT the solution. By just saying no, you leave the market in limbo with no clear pathway for moving forward.
Defining the problem
Currently all building projects are regulated by multiple codes: zoning, building, fire, mechanical, electrical, energy etc. Additional voluntary CalGreen, Reach or Stretch code overlays are further available for any city or county to adopt, on top of the mandated standard codes. In addition to mandated and voluntary codes, unique local zoning and design guidelines effectively render California a ‘’home rule” state - a place where every city may adopt their own set of rules to govern its buildings. [See the graphic image above showing variable code overlays boxed in red dash.] Every architect and home builder, including affordable housing developers, is required to navigate each jurisdiction’s maze of overlays, making efficient design, predictable approval rates and rational processes effectively impossible. This is the madness that makes almost all jurisdictions in California a nightmare to build in. The variability (and often, tyranny) of 'local control' is why we find ourselves in a housing crisis. It is this insanity that I suspect you are attempting to remedy.
Viable solutions
There are solutions that have worked elsewhere. Here are two that offer the relief I believe you and your supporters are seeking:
领英推荐
This is the rationalization and transparency California’s building and regulatory communities desperately need. It is not enough to say NO MORE CHANGES. What California's building industry needs is a clearly defined path that can be navigated with certainty and clarity, which simultaneously helps us meet our STATE MANDATED climate action goals.
With these solutions in mind, I urge you to reconsider your support for AB 306 and either withdraw it, or restructure it to incorporate the solutions I have outlined above.
With gratitude for your public service.
Respectfully yours,
Bronwyn Barry, RA, CPHD
Principal, PassiveHouseBB.com
President at David Coulson Design Ltd.
1 个月We have the Step Code in British Columbia and is working great. Nearly all juridictions at Step code 3 now
Empowering people to make homes better
1 个月You all need to pass bills in CA to update code? Here in MI the legislator committee needs to move it and they are illegally stalling it now 3 years.
AIA, FCSI, CCS, CCCA, CPHC, LEED AP, WELL AP, LFA ? architect ? musician ? student of story | TEDx speaker | Global speaker on resilience, wellness, and achieving climate solutions through application of systems thinking
1 个月Brilliant! Why say NO, when YES is better? Love the step code solution…