Rationalizing Building Codes in California
California building codes per building type, by author

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:

  1. Rationalized Zoning & Design Guidelines: Every city in California - large and small - should be required to adopt a uniform zoning structure. A palette of options based on regional style or city size may be developed, but a radical simplification and rationalization of zoning and design guideline overlays is desperately needed. This will drastically simplify the maze of primarily subjective regulations owners and professionals are required to navigate for every single building.
  2. Replace green/reach/stretch code overlays with a Step Code: In 2015 British Columbia removed all local reach codes and replaced them with 5 pre-defined steps for local jurisdictions to choose from. This acknowledged that not all cities could or would move at the same speed, but also set a sunset date by which all cities must reach the top step. By creating this clearly defined, transparent and pre-determined pathway, all industry professionals, product manufacturers and local regulators could clearly see where they were headed and what they needed to deliver.

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

Dave Coulson

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

Brett Little

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.

回复
James Scott Brew

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…

要查看或添加评论,请登录

Bronwyn Barry的更多文章

社区洞察

其他会员也浏览了