(1)Existing law authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency respecting the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the California Building Standards Commission. Existing law authorizes any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of that agency respecting that building standard to appeal to the commission, provided that both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to accept those appeals only if the commission determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions to expand the reasons for which a person can appeal to the commission to include, among other things, a request for approval to use an alternate material. The bill would modify the conditions under which the commission may accept an appeal by removing the requirement that both the local agency and the adversely affected person wish to appeal the issue, and by requiring that certain issues appealed have both statewide significance and that the person seeking the appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the commission, subject to a certain exception. The bill would require the commission to review those appealed issues with specified stakeholders. The bill would additionally authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the commission relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the commission. The bill would require the commission to post, on its internet website and in a searchable format, decisions on appeals and code interpretations that it issues.

(2)Existing law requires a local enforcement agencys written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to be made available to the public upon request.

This bill would, instead, require those written rules and regulations to be posted on the agencys internet website in a manner that clearly identifies the rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy and links those rules or regulations, where applicable, to the related local amendments and express findings.

(3)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(4)By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency respecting the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the California Building Standards Commission. Existing law authorizes any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of that agency respecting that building standard to appeal to the commission, provided that both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to accept those appeals only if the commission determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions to expand the reasons for which a person can appeal to the commission to include, among other things, a request for approval to use an alternate material. The bill would modify the conditions under which the commission may accept an appeal by removing the requirement that both the local agency and the adversely affected person wish to appeal the issue, and by requiring that certain issues appealed have both statewide significance and that the person seeking the appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the commission, subject to a certain exception. The bill would require the commission to review those appealed issues with specified stakeholders. The bill would additionally authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the commission relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the commission. The bill would require the commission to post, on its internet website and in a searchable format, decisions on appeals and code interpretations that it issues.

(2)Existing law requires a local enforcement agencys written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to be made available to the public upon request.

This bill would, instead, require those written rules and regulations to be posted on the agencys internet website in a manner that clearly identifies the rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy and links those rules or regulations, where applicable, to the related local amendments and express findings.

(3)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(4)By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency respecting the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the California Building Standards Commission. Existing law authorizes any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of that agency respecting that building standard to appeal to the commission, provided that both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. Existing law authorizes the commission to accept those appeals only if the commission determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance.

This bill would revise and recast those provisions to expand the reasons for which a person can appeal to the commission to include, among other things, being adversely affected by any building standard or local amendment to a building standard or any reasonable interpretation of the California Building Standards Code. a request for approval to use an alternate material. The bill would expand modify the conditions under which the commission may accept an appeal by removing the requirement that both the local agency and the adversely affected person wish to appeal the issue, and by revising the required statewide significance determination of the commission to instead only require that statewide significance to be potential, as provided. The bill would also authorize the commission to decline to accept an appeal if the commission determines that the issues raised are primarily local in nature, lack current or potential statewide significance, or do not materially affect housing delivery or adaptive reuse. requiring that certain issues appealed have both statewide significance and that the person seeking the appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the commission, subject to a certain exception. The bill would require the commission to review those appealed issues with specified stakeholders. The bill would additionally authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the commission relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the commission. The bill would require the commission to post, on its internet website and in a searchable format, decisions on appeals and code interpretations that it issues.

(2)Existing law requires a local enforcement agencys written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to be made available to the public upon request.

This bill would, instead, require those written rules and regulations to be posted on the agencys internet website in a manner that clearly identifies the rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy and links those rules or regulations, where applicable, to the related local amendments and express findings.

(3)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(4)By increasing the duties of local officials, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

This bill would, from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would also require the commission to review certain changes or modifications within 45 days of receipt.

(2)The California Building Standards Law defines various terms to govern the construction of its provisions, including model code, which means any building code drafted by private organizations or otherwise, and is required to include, but not be limited to, the latest edition of various codes.

This bill would modify the definition of model code to add the latest edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code Council.

(3)Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(4)The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill, from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(5)Existing law requires only those building standards approved by the commission, and that are effective at the local level at the time an application for a building permit is submitted, to apply to the plans and specifications for, and to the construction performed under, that building permit. Existing law requires a local ordinance adding or modifying building standards for residential occupancies, which are published in the California Building Standards Code, to apply only to an application for a building permit submitted after the effective date of the ordinance and to the plans and specifications for, and the construction performed under, that permit, subject to certain exceptions.

This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, require the state and local building standards in effect at the time an application for a building permit is submitted, for a residential dwelling based on a model home design approved under those standards, to apply to all future residential dwellings based on that approved model home design in the same jurisdiction, unless a certain condition applies. By requiring local entities to apply certain building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(6)Existing law provides that neither the State Building Standards Law, nor the application of certain building standards, limits the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, and pursuant to making certain findings.

This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from establishing more restrictive building standards that are applicable to residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(7)Existing law requires the commission to publish, or cause to be published, editions of the code in its entirety once in every 3 years, and supplements as necessary in the intervening period. Existing law also requires an emergency building standards supplement to be published whenever the commission determines it is necessary.

This bill would limit the changes adopted during the intervening period to changes deemed necessary for editorial or clarity reasons, emergency building standards, amendments by the State Fire Marshal to specified building standards, certain necessary building standards and related state amendments, and certain changes or modifications to administrative practices, as specified.

(8)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

This bill would, from June October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations. The bill would also require the commission to review certain changes or modifications within 45 days of receipt.

(2)The California Building Standards Law defines various terms to govern the construction of its provisions, including model code, which means any building code drafted by private organizations or otherwise, and is required to include, but not be limited to, the latest edition of various codes.

This bill would modify the definition of model code to add the latest edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code of the International Code Council.

(3)Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(4)The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill, from June October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(5)Existing law requires only those building standards approved by the commission, and that are effective at the local level at the time an application for a building permit is submitted, to apply to the plans and specifications for, and to the construction performed under, that building permit. Existing law requires a local ordinance adding or modifying building standards for residential occupancies, which are published in the California Building Standards Code, to apply only to an application for a building permit submitted after the effective date of the ordinance and to the plans and specifications for, and the construction performed under, that permit, subject to certain exceptions.

This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, require the state and local building standards in effect at the time an application for a building permit is submitted, for a residential dwelling based on a model home design approved under those standards, to apply to all future residential dwellings based on that approved model home design, design in the same jurisdiction, unless a certain condition applies. By requiring local entities to apply certain building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

(6)Existing law provides that neither the State Building Standards Law, nor the application of certain building standards, limits the authority of a city, county, or city and county to establish more restrictive building standards, including, but not limited to, green building standards, reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions, and pursuant to making certain findings.

This bill would, notwithstanding those provisions, from June October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from establishing more restrictive building standards that are applicable to residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(7)Existing law requires the commission to publish, or cause to be published, editions of the code in its entirety once in every 3 years, and supplements as necessary in the intervening period. Existing law also requires an emergency building standards supplement to be published whenever the commission determines it is necessary.

This bill would limit the changes adopted during the intervening period to changes deemed necessary for editorial or clarity reasons, emergency building standards, amendments by the State Fire Marshal to specified building standards, and certain necessary building standards and related state amendments. amendments, and certain changes or modifications to administrative practices, as specified.

(8)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(9)The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

(1)Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until to June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. By requiring a city or county to take certain actions relating to building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until to June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

(3)Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June 1, 2025, until to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(4)The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill bill, from June 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

(8)The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

(10)This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. By requiring a city or county to take certain actions relating to building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes that are applicable to residential units to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. By requiring a city or county to take certain actions relating to building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

Existing law establishes the Department of Housing and Community Development (department) in the Business, Consumer Services, and Housing Agency. Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission (commission) within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code (code). Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation.

Existing law requires, among other things, the building standards adopted and submitted by the department for approval by the commission, as specified, to be adopted by reference, with certain exceptions. Existing law authorizes any city or county to make changes in those building standards that are published in the code, including to green building standards. Existing law requires the governing body of a city or county, before making modifications or changes to those green building standards, to make an express finding that those modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, prohibit a city or county from making changes to the above-described building standards unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. By requiring a city or county to take certain actions relating to building standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

This bill would, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, require the commission to reject a modification or change to any building standard, as described above, affecting a residential unit and filed by the governing body of a city or county unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety. The bill would also make related findings and declarations.

Existing law requires the commission to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle and to develop regulations, as specified, setting forth the procedures for the 18-month adoption cycle.

This bill, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, inclusive, would provide that the above-described requirement does not apply to any building standards affecting residential units and would prohibit the commission from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The California Building Standards Law provides for the adoption of building standards by state agencies by requiring all state agencies that adopt or propose adoption of any building standard to submit the building standard to the commission for approval and adoption.

This bill would prohibit the commission or any other adopting agency from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, unless a certain condition is met, including that the commission deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.

The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

GOVERNOR'S VETO

GV Bill Id:AB 306

Author:(Schultz, et al.)

As Enrolled Ver:September 1, 2026

2/3 vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local enforcement agency's implementation of the California Building Standards Code, and to issue code interpretations, as specified.

Major Provisions:

1. Require the CBSC to decide appeals resulting from the administration of state building standards and promulgate code interpretations.
2. Modify the existing authority to appeal an issue to the CBSC of any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any local agency, having authority to enforce a state building standard, by specifying that the decision to appeal to the CBSC need not be agreed to by the local agency.
3. Specify an issue appealed pursuant to 1) may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that approval of such a request shall be limited to the particular case covered by the request and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for any future request.
4. Authorize the CBSC to approve a request to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection only if it meets both of the following conditions:
   1. It is not specifically, in name, design, or function, prohibited, restricted, or otherwise regulated in the California Building Standards Code; and
   2. It has not been specifically, in name, design, or function, rejected for inclusion in the California Building Standards Code.
5. Authorize the CBSC to accept an appeal pursuant to 1) only if both of the following are true:
   1. The CBSC determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance; and
   2. The person seeking to appeal an issue has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the CBSC. Specifies exhaustion of local appeals procedures shall not be required as a prerequisite for an appeal requested jointly by the person adversely affected and the local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard.
6. Require the CBSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the building industry, local agencies having authority to enforce a state building standard, and labor organizations.
7. Authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the CBSC relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the CBSC. Requires the CBSC, when the request relates to a specific project, occupancy, or building, to review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before rendering the code interpretation.
8. Require decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the CBSC to be posted in a searchable format on the CBSC's internet website.
9. Require a local enforcement agency that issues written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to post them on the agency's website, as specified.
10. Make findings and declarations that state this bill addresses the statewide housing crisis as recognized by California courts, which have consistently held that state housing laws prevail over municipal affairs where necessary to facilitate housing production and overcome local barriers.

Governor's Veto Message

This bill would expand the California Building Standards Commission's authority to hear appeals of certain local building code decisions, including requests to use alternative materials or construction methods, and to interpret provisions it has adopted.

My administration worked extensively with the Legislature to make California's building standards more predictable and efficient. Last year's state budget incorporated provisions from an earlier iteration of this measure that generally paused new residential building standards until mid-2031, providing greater regulatory certainty and helping contain construction costs.

I thank the author for their partnership and continued commitment to this important issue. However, this bill does not clearly explain how the Commission's new appeals pathway would interact with the existing processes administered by the California Energy Commission, the State Historical Building Safety Board, and the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

These agencies already administer specialized energy, fire, and life-safety standards, resolve disputes arising from local decisions, and evaluate alternative methods of compliance. Allowing the same issues to be presented to the Building Standards Commission without specifying which agency has final authority could result in duplicative proceedings, inconsistent interpretations, and project delays. These risks are particularly concerning for housing projects, where uncertainty over applicable building standards can delay approvals, disrupt financing, increase construction costs, and ultimately prevent urgently needed homes from being built. The new process would also impose significant ongoing costs without dedicated funding.

COMMENTS

Appeals. As part of its statutory responsibilities, CBSC is required to hear appeals brought by persons adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a state or local agency responsible for enforcing the state building standards. Although existing law directs the CBSC to hear these appeals, it does not expressly require the CBSC to approve or deny an appeal or otherwise issue a decision resolving the matter. Existing law also creates some ambiguity regarding when an appeal involving a local agency may be brought before the CBSC. The statute provides that when a local agency and a person adversely affected by the agency's decision concerning the application of state building standards both wish to appeal an issue to the CBSC for resolution, the parties may do so. This provision could be interpreted to require agreement by both the affected person and the local agency before an appeal may proceed. Under that interpretation, a person seeking review of a local agency's decision may be unable to obtain review unless the agency itself agrees to participate in the appeal, even though the appeal may seek to overturn the agency's original decision.

This bill will clarify that a person adversely impacted by a local agency's decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the CBSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency's decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the CBSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the CBSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

Alternate materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for adopting regulations that promote fire and life safety for incorporation into the California Building Standards Code. The SFM also adopts regulations governing fire hazard severity zones. Under regulations adopted by the SFM, an applicant may seek approval from the local enforcement agency to use an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection for requirements within the SFM's jurisdiction. If the local enforcement agency denies the proposed alternative, the regulations allow an applicant to submit a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of the alternative. The regulations further provide that approval of an alternative by either the local enforcement agency or the SFM does not establish a precedent for future requests.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM's jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the CBSC's general jurisdiction.

Gutted. This bill was gutted and amended into a new policy in June 2026.

According to the Author

"AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California's 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied."

Arguments in Support

According to California Yes in My Backyard (YIMBY) and the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR), "The bill clarifies the California Building Standards Commission's authority to hear and decide appeals to promulgate code interpretations, and it allows any person to request an interpretation of the intent of a provision the Commission has adopted – so that applicants are not forced to re-litigate the same technical questions jurisdiction by jurisdiction. It creates an appeals pathway for local decisions that raise issues of statewide significance, including requests to use alternate materials, assemblies, equipment, or methods of construction, giving applicants recourse when local decisions diverge from state standards. And it requires that both Commission decision and Commission interpretations be posted in a searchable format online, and that local written rules and policies be posted on the local agency's website, clearly identified as a local interpretation and linked to the related local amendments and express findings."

According to the American Institute of Architects California, "Importantly, AB 306 builds upon processes already successfully utilized elsewhere in state government. The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Division of the State Architect both maintain longstanding appeals and interpretation processes that provide clarity and consistency in the administration of building standards. AB 306 extends similar concepts to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the California Building Standards Commission. The bill has also been significantly amended in response to stakeholder concerns and now includes a number of important guardrails to preserve local authority."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California Building Officials, "In our professional opinion, AB 306 will benefit a narrow group of for-profit interests that seek to fast-track approvals on their products and practices. In our experience, local familiarity and relationships between most construction and design professionals aid in expediting permit approvals. What works in a mountainous climate zone, as code officials understand, does not hold true for coastal urban environments. A "one size fits all" approach to code interpretations simply jeopardizes public safety. Building code enforcement requires professional judgement and local accountability. The existence of differing interpretations does not demonstrate system failure. It reflects the reality that building safety decisions are site-specific and operationally dependent to address specific safety concerns.

AB 306 also places considerable responsibility upon the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). We work daily with the BSC and are very familiar with their capabilities and capacities. It is important to note that the BSC – staff and appointed commission – are a highly administrative body as opposed to technical experts. Adding the necessary staff and overhead expenses to the BSC would result in significant cost to the Department of General Services and overall California state budget. As outlined in the Terner Center report on California's Building Code Appeals process in 2025, local officials rely heavily upon larger administrative decision-making bodies for appeals. This is part of the problem outlined by the report, which is only going to be exacerbated when elevated to a higher-level statewide decision-making body. Hearings will be few and far between, which will only add to the problem as opposed to offering a solution."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (Department of General Services Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.
2. Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson, Gabriel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Essayli, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Boerner, Caloza, Connolly, Davies, Hart, Wicks, Zbur

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 74-0-5

YES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Caloza, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, Connolly, Davies, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Bauer-Kahan, Boerner, Kalra, McKinnor, Pellerin

UPDATED

VERSION: September 1, 2026

CONSULTANT: Juan Reyes / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004593

Date of Hearing: August 27, 2026

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 306 (

Author:Schultz) – As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

SUBJECT: California Building Standards Commission: appeals: code interpretations

SUMMARY: Requires the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local enforcement agency’s implementation of the California Building Standards Code, and to issue code interpretations, as specified. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires the CBSC to decide appeals resulting from the administration of state building standards and promulgate code interpretations.
2. Modifies the existing authority to appeal an issue to the CBSC of any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any local agency, having authority to enforce a state building standard, by specifying that the decision to appeal to the CBSC need not be agreed to by the local agency.
3. Specifies an issue appealed pursuant to 2) may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that approval of such a request shall be limited to the particular case covered by the request and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for any future request.
4. Authorizes the CBSC to approve a request to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection only if it meets both of the following conditions:
   1. It is not specifically, in name, design, or function, prohibited, restricted, or otherwise regulated in the California Building Standards Code; and
   2. It has not been specifically, in name, design, or function, rejected for inclusion in the California Building Standards Code.
5. Authorizes the CBSC to accept an appeal pursuant to 2) only if both of the following are true:
   1. The CBSC determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance; and
   2. The person seeking to appeal an issue has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the CBSC. Specifies exhaustion of local appeals procedures shall not be required as a prerequisite for an appeal requested jointly by the person adversely affected and the local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard.
6. Requires the CBSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the building industry, local agencies having authority to enforce a state building standard, and labor organizations.
7. Authorizes any person to request a code interpretation from the CBSC relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the CBSC. Requires the CBSC, when the request relates to a specific project, occupancy, or building, to review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before rendering the code interpretation.
8. Requires decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the CBSC to be posted in a searchable format on the CBSC’’s internet website.
9. Requires a local enforcement agency that issues written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to post them on the agency’s website, as specified.
10. Makes findings and declarations that this bill addresses the statewide housing crisis as recognized by California courts, which have consistently held that state housing laws prevail over municipal affairs where necessary to facilitate housing production and overcome local barriers.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Pauses changes to building standards affecting residential units at the state and local level from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 18929.1(c), HSC 17958(b)]
2. Establishes the CBSC within the Department of General Services and requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Requires CBSC to publish editions of the code in its entirety once every three years. In the intervening period the commission must publish supplements as necessary. (HSC 18942, HSC 18930)
3. Requires CBSC to receive proposed building standards from a state agency for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle. Requires CBSC to adopt regulations governing the procedures for 18-month code adoption cycle, which must include adequate provision of the following:
   1. Public participation in the development of standards;
   2. Notice in written form to the public of the compiled building standards with justifications;
   3. Technical review of the proposed building standards and accompanying justification by advisory boards appointed by CBSC; and
   4. Time for review of recommendations by the advisory boards prior to CBSC taking action. (HSC 18929.1)
4. Requires proposed building standards that are submitted to CBSC for consideration to be accompanied by an analysis completed by the appropriate state agency that justifies approval based on the following criteria:
   1. The building standard does not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate other building standards;
   2. The proposed standard is within the parameters of the agency's jurisdiction;
   3. The public interest requires the adoption of the building standard;
   4. The standard is not unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious;
   5. The cost to the public is reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standard;
   6. The standard is not unnecessarily ambiguous or vague; and
   7. The applicable national specifications, published standards, and model codes have been appropriately incorporated into the standard. (HSC 18930)
5. Authorizes cities and counties to make reasonably necessary changes or modifications to the provisions of the California Building Standards Code upon finding these changes are reasonably necessary due to local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. (HSC 17958.5, HSC 17958.7)
6. Authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency regarding the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission. [HSC 18945(a)]
7. Provides that if any local agency with authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of such agency both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the CBSC, then both parties may appeal to the CBSC. The BSC may accept such appeal only if the CBSC determines that the issues involved in such appeal have statewide significance. [HSC 18945(b)]

FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (DGS Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.
• Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California’s 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied.”

Building Standards: The California Building Standards Law establishes the process for adopting state building standards by the Commission. Statewide building standards are intended to provide uniformity in building across the state. The CBSC’s duties include the following: receiving proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in each triennial and intervening building code adoption cycle; reviewing and approving building standards submitted by state agencies; adopting building standards for state buildings where no other state agency is authorized by law; and publishing the approved building standards in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).

Most building standards currently in use in California are developed and vetted at the national level every three years by technical organizations, academics, and trade associations that develop consensus standards, which are then incorporated into the IBC, the national model code used by most U.S. jurisdictions. At the state level, agencies with authority over specified occupancies then review the IBC and amend as necessary for California’s specific needs. There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to the CBSC.

After the proposal of building standards by state agencies, the proposals undergo a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the CBSC for consideration. CBSC reviews and adopts the standards and files them with the Secretary of State for codification and publishing, and there is a 180-day period during which local agencies file modifications and changes to the state codes (though they are not limited to this window). The new codes then take effect January 1 of the subsequent year following publication.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes.

HCD is responsible for the standards for residential buildings, hotels and motels. The California Building Code and California Residential Code govern general standards for multifamily and single-family residential construction. The Office of the State Fire Marshal is responsible for adopting building standards focused on fire and panic safety for residential occupancies. Within the codes, there are certain requirements that are mandatory for all newly constructed dwellings or buildings, and certain provisions that are optional or voluntary – meaning the requirements must be followed only if an entity chooses to construct certain items or systems.

As a matter of practice, the Legislature typically offers guidelines or directs agencies to consider certain standards, rather than requires the adoption of specific standards, in order to provide flexibility and allow for subject matter experts to determine appropriateness and weigh the many considerations that must be evaluated when recommending new or modified building standards.

Local Amendments to State Codes: Local governments are provided wide latitude to make changes and modifications to the state baseline codes – so long as they exceed or are more protective than the state baseline, not a reduction – and for codes affecting residential buildings (excluding energy “reach codes” which follow a different process), neither the CBSC nor statute requires the local modifications to include any cost determinations or economic impact analysis. Local governments simply have to include a finding in their filing with the CBSC that the modifications are “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions” or environmental conditions for green building standards. CBSC does not currently have the authority to review these findings for validity, merits, or the justification of reasonableness, nor do the local amendments have to follow the APA or more rigorous state review criteria requiring state building standards to “not [be] unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part” or have a “cost to the public [that is] reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards.”

Numerous Directives and Mandates Leading to Standards Freeze: The Legislature and Governor have enacted multiple additional directives to research and propose new building standards in recent years, including for rainwater catchment, electric vehicle charging, water efficiency and reuse, adaptive reuse projects, and beyond. Some of the most impactful mandates in recent years have also come from outside stakeholders or the adopting agencies themselves (rather than the Legislature), like solar panel mandates and fire sprinkler requirements. There are several legitimate and important concerns that are addressed by these and many other elements of building standards for housing. However, the framework for proposing and adopting new standards leaves agencies in silos regarding the volume or costs of new proposals that counterpart agencies are also simultaneously developing. Cost analyses are performed on each individual modification or for each respective chapter, not on the accumulation of the entirety of changes in each intervening or triennial cycle across all agencies. Holistic review is therefore difficult and while individual standards may increase costs by what appears a reasonable amount, from a different lens, the cost of the totality of all cumulative changes may be less reasonable.

In response to concerns regarding the rapid pace of modifications to building standards, the deadly Los Angeles fires of January 2025, and a need to find methods to stem increases in housing construction costs, the Legislature and Governor enacted several significant changes to building standards in the 2025 housing budget trailer bill, AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 22. The most significant change is a freeze to any new building standards or changes to existing building standards affecting residential units at both the state and local level until 2031, with limited exceptions.

Appeals. As part of its statutory responsibilities, CBSC is required to hear appeals brought by persons adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a state or local agency responsible for enforcing the state building standards. Although existing law directs the CBSC to hear these appeals, it does not expressly require the CBSC to approve or deny an appeal or otherwise issue a decision resolving the matter. Existing law also creates some ambiguity regarding when an appeal involving a local agency may be brought before the CBSC. The statute provides that when a local agency and a person adversely affected by the agency’s decision concerning the application of state building standards both wish to appeal an issue to the CBSC for resolution, the parties may do so. This provision could be interpreted to require agreement by both the affected person and the local agency before an appeal may proceed. Under that interpretation, a person seeking review of a local agency’s decision may be unable to obtain review unless the agency itself agrees to participate in the appeal, even though the appeal may seek to overturn the agency’s original decision.

This bill clarifies that a person adversely impacted by a local agency’s decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the CBSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency’s decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the CBSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the CBSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

Alternate materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for adopting regulations that promote fire and life safety for incorporation into the California Building Standards Code. The SFM also adopts regulations governing fire hazard severity zones. Under regulations adopted by the SFM, an applicant may seek approval from the local enforcement agency to use an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection for requirements within the SFM’s jurisdiction. If the local enforcement agency denies the proposed alternative, the regulations allow an applicant to submit a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of the alternative. The regulations further provide that approval of an alternative by either the local enforcement agency or the SFM does not establish a precedent for future requests.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM’s jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the CBSC’s general jurisdiction.

Gutted: This bill was gutted and amended into a new policy in June 2026.

Arguments in Support: According to California YIMBY and SPUR, “The bill clarifies the California Building Standards Commission’s authority to hear and decide appeals to promulgate code interpretations, and it allows any person to request an interpretation of the intent of a provision the Commission has adopted – so that applicants are not forced to re-litigate the same technical questions jurisdiction by jurisdiction. It creates an appeals pathway for local decisions that raise issues of statewide significance, including requests to use alternate materials, assemblies, equipment, or methods of construction, giving applicants recourse when local decisions diverge from state standards. And it requires that both Commission decision and Commission interpretations be posted in a searchable format online, and that local written rules and policies be posted on the local agency’s website, clearly identified as a local interpretation and linked to the related local amendments and express findings.”

According to the American Institute of Architects California, “Importantly, AB 306 builds upon processes already successfully utilized elsewhere in state government. The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Division of the State Architect both maintain longstanding appeals and interpretation processes that provide clarity and consistency in the administration of building standards. AB 306 extends similar concepts to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the California Building Standards Commission. The bill has also been significantly amended in response to stakeholder concerns and now includes a number of important guardrails to preserve local authority.”

Arguments in Opposition: According to the California Building Officials, “In our professional opinion, AB 306 will benefit a narrow group of for-profit interests that seek to fast-track approvals on their products and practices. In our experience, local familiarity and relationships between most construction and design professionals aid in expediting permit approvals. What works in a mountainous climate zone, as code officials understand, does not hold true for coastal urban environments. A “one size fits all” approach to code interpretations simply jeopardizes public safety. Building code enforcement requires professional judgement and local accountability. The existence of differing interpretations does not demonstrate system failure. It reflects the reality that building safety decisions are site-specific and operationally dependent to address specific safety concerns.

AB 306 also places considerable responsibility upon the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). We work daily with the BSC and are very familiar with their capabilities and capacities. It is important to note that the BSC – staff and appointed commission – are a highly administrative body as opposed to technical experts. Adding the necessary staff and overhead expenses to the BSC would result in significant cost to the Department of General Services and overall California state budget. As outlined in the Terner Center report on California’s Building Code Appeals process in 2025, local officials rely heavily upon larger administrative decision-making bodies for appeals. This is part of the problem outlined by the report, which is only going to be exacerbated when elevated to a higher-level statewide decision-making body. Hearings will be few and far between, which will only add to the problem as opposed to offering a solution.”

Related Legislation: AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025. Prohibits the CSBC and any other adopting agency, from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, with limited exceptions. Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from October 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions. Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Institute of Architects California (Sponsor)

Abundant Housing LA

Bay Area Council

California Apartment Association

California Conference of Carpenters

California YIMBY

Construction Employers' Association

Council of Infill Builders

Eden Housing

House Sacramento

Housing Action Coalition

Housing California

Los Angeles County

Phillips Win Architecture

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

Studio One Eleven

USGBC California

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Opposition

California Building Officials

County Building Officials Association of California

City of Oceanside

Analysis Prepared by: Juan Reyes / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA2 Bill Id:AB 306

Author:(Schultz, et al.)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Original Committee of Reference: H.& C.D.

Requires the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local enforcement agency's implementation of the California Building Standards Code, and to issue code interpretations, as specified.

Senate Amendments

Current Committee Recommendation: Concur

1. Delete the previous contents of the bill.
2. Require the CBSC to decide appeals resulting from the administration of state building standards and promulgate code interpretations.
3. Modify the existing authority to appeal an issue to the CBSC of any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any local agency, having authority to enforce a state building standard, by specifying that the decision to appeal to the CBSC need not be agreed to by the local agency.
4. Specify an issue appealed pursuant to 2) may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that approval of such a request shall be limited to the particular case covered by the request and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for any future request.
5. Authorize the CBSC to approve a request to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection only if it meets both of the following conditions:
   1. It is not specifically, in name, design, or function, prohibited, restricted, or otherwise regulated in the California Building Standards Code; and
   2. It has not been specifically, in name, design, or function, rejected for inclusion in the California Building Standards Code.
6. Authorize the CBSC to accept an appeal pursuant to 2) only if both of the following are true:
   1. The CBSC determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance; and
   2. The person seeking to appeal an issue has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the CBSC. Specifies exhaustion of local appeals procedures shall not be required as a prerequisite for an appeal requested jointly by the person adversely affected and the local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard.
7. Require the CBSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the building industry, local agencies having authority to enforce a state building standard, and labor organizations.
8. Authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the CBSC relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the CBSC. Requires the CBSC, when the request relates to a specific project, occupancy, or building, to review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before rendering the code interpretation.
9. Require decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the CBSC to be posted in a searchable format on the CBSC''s internet website.
10. Require a local enforcement agency that issues written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to post them on the agency's website, as specified.
11. Make findings and declarations that state this bill addresses the statewide housing crisis as recognized by California courts, which have consistently held that state housing laws prevail over municipal affairs where necessary to facilitate housing production and overcome local barriers.

COMMENTS

Appeals. As part of its statutory responsibilities, CBSC is required to hear appeals brought by persons adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a state or local agency responsible for enforcing the state building standards. Although existing law directs the CBSC to hear these appeals, it does not expressly require the CBSC to approve or deny an appeal or otherwise issue a decision resolving the matter. Existing law also creates some ambiguity regarding when an appeal involving a local agency may be brought before the CBSC. The statute provides that when a local agency and a person adversely affected by the agency's decision concerning the application of state building standards both wish to appeal an issue to the CBSC for resolution, the parties may do so. This provision could be interpreted to require agreement by both the affected person and the local agency before an appeal may proceed. Under that interpretation, a person seeking review of a local agency's decision may be unable to obtain review unless the agency itself agrees to participate in the appeal, even though the appeal may seek to overturn the agency's original decision.

This bill will clarify that a person adversely impacted by a local agency's decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the CBSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency's decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the CBSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the CBSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

Alternate materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for adopting regulations that promote fire and life safety for incorporation into the California Building Standards Code. The SFM also adopts regulations governing fire hazard severity zones. Under regulations adopted by the SFM, an applicant may seek approval from the local enforcement agency to use an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection for requirements within the SFM's jurisdiction. If the local enforcement agency denies the proposed alternative, the regulations allow an applicant to submit a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of the alternative. The regulations further provide that approval of an alternative by either the local enforcement agency or the SFM does not establish a precedent for future requests.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM's jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the CBSC's general jurisdiction.

Gutted. This bill was gutted and amended into a new policy in June 2026.

According to the Author

“AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California’s 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied.”

Arguments in Support

According to California YIMBY and SPUR, “The bill clarifies the California Building Standards Commission’s authority to hear and decide appeals to promulgate code interpretations, and it allows any person to request an interpretation of the intent of a provision the Commission has adopted – so that applicants are not forced to re-litigate the same technical questions jurisdiction by jurisdiction. It creates an appeals pathway for local decisions that raise issues of statewide significance, including requests to use alternate materials, assemblies, equipment, or methods of construction, giving applicants recourse when local decisions diverge from state standards. And it requires that both Commission decision and Commission interpretations be posted in a searchable format online, and that local written rules and policies be posted on the local agency’s website, clearly identified as a local interpretation and linked to the related local amendments and express findings.”

According to the American Institute of Architects California, “Importantly, AB 306 builds upon processes already successfully utilized elsewhere in state government. The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Division of the State Architect both maintain longstanding appeals and interpretation processes that provide clarity and consistency in the administration of building standards. AB 306 extends similar concepts to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the California Building Standards Commission. The bill has also been significantly amended in response to stakeholder concerns and now includes a number of important guardrails to preserve local authority.”

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California Building Officials, “In our professional opinion, AB 306 will benefit a narrow group of for-profit interests that seek to fast-track approvals on their products and practices. In our experience, local familiarity and relationships between most construction and design professionals aid in expediting permit approvals. What works in a mountainous climate zone, as code officials understand, does not hold true for coastal urban environments. A “one size fits all” approach to code interpretations simply jeopardizes public safety. Building code enforcement requires professional judgement and local accountability. The existence of differing interpretations does not demonstrate system failure. It reflects the reality that building safety decisions are site-specific and operationally dependent to address specific safety concerns.

AB 306 also places considerable responsibility upon the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). We work daily with the BSC and are very familiar with their capabilities and capacities. It is important to note that the BSC – staff and appointed commission – are a highly administrative body as opposed to technical experts. Adding the necessary staff and overhead expenses to the BSC would result in significant cost to the Department of General Services and overall California state budget. As outlined in the Terner Center report on California’s Building Code Appeals process in 2025, local officials rely heavily upon larger administrative decision-making bodies for appeals. This is part of the problem outlined by the report, which is only going to be exacerbated when elevated to a higher-level statewide decision-making body. Hearings will be few and far between, which will only add to the problem as opposed to offering a solution.”

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (DGS Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.

Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson, Gabriel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Essayli, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Boerner, Caloza, Connolly, Davies, Hart, Wicks, Zbur

SENATE FLOOR: 40-0-0

YES: Allen, Alvarado-Gil, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Choi, Cortese, Dahle, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Grove, Hurtado, Jones, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Niello, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Reyes, Richardson, Rubio, Seyarto, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Strickland, Umberg, Valladares, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Garcia, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Tangipa, Wicks, Wilson

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Juan Reyes / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004387

CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

CSA1 Bill Id:AB 306

Author:(Schultz, et al.)

As Amended Ver:July 2, 2026

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local enforcement agency's implementation of the California Building Standards Code, and to issue code interpretations, as specified

Senate Amendments

1. Delete the previous contents of the bill.
2. Require the CBSC to decide appeals resulting from the administration of state building standards and promulgate code interpretations.
3. Modify the existing authority to appeal an issue to the CBSC of any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any local agency, having authority to enforce a state building standard, by specifying that the decision to appeal to the CBSC need not be agreed to by the local agency.
4. Specify an issue appealed pursuant to 2) may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that approval of such a request shall be limited to the particular case covered by the request and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for any future request.
5. Authorize the CBSC to approve a request to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection only if it meets both of the following conditions:
   1. It is not specifically, in name, design, or function, prohibited, restricted, or otherwise regulated in the California Building Standards Code; and
   2. It has not been specifically, in name, design, or function, rejected for inclusion in the California Building Standards Code.
6. Authorize the CBSC to accept an appeal pursuant to 2) only if both of the following are true:
   1. The CBSC determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance; and
   2. The person seeking to appeal an issue has exhausted all local appeals procedures before appealing to the CBSC. Specifies exhaustion of local appeals procedures shall not be required as a prerequisite for an appeal requested jointly by the person adversely affected and the local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard.
7. Require the CBSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the building industry, local agencies having authority to enforce a state building standard, and labor organizations.
8. Authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the CBSC relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the CBSC. Requires the CBSC, when the request relates to a specific project, occupancy, or building, to review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before rendering the code interpretation.
9. Require decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the CBSC to be posted in a searchable format on the CBSC''s internet website.
10. Require a local enforcement agency that issues written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application of the California Building Standards Code to post them on the agency's website, as specified.
11. Make findings and declarations that state this bill addresses the statewide housing crisis as recognized by California courts, which have consistently held that state housing laws prevail over municipal affairs where necessary to facilitate housing production and overcome local barriers.

COMMENTS

Appeals. As part of its statutory responsibilities, CBSC is required to hear appeals brought by persons adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a state or local agency responsible for enforcing the state building standards. Although existing law directs the CBSC to hear these appeals, it does not expressly require the CBSC to approve or deny an appeal or otherwise issue a decision resolving the matter. Existing law also creates some ambiguity regarding when an appeal involving a local agency may be brought before the CBSC. The statute provides that when a local agency and a person adversely affected by the agency's decision concerning the application of state building standards both wish to appeal an issue to the CBSC for resolution, the parties may do so. This provision could be interpreted to require agreement by both the affected person and the local agency before an appeal may proceed. Under that interpretation, a person seeking review of a local agency's decision may be unable to obtain review unless the agency itself agrees to participate in the appeal, even though the appeal may seek to overturn the agency's original decision.

This bill will clarify that a person adversely impacted by a local agency's decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the CBSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency's decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the CBSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the CBSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

Alternate materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for adopting regulations that promote fire and life safety for incorporation into the California Building Standards Code. The SFM also adopts regulations governing fire hazard severity zones. Under regulations adopted by the SFM, an applicant may seek approval from the local enforcement agency to use an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection for requirements within the SFM's jurisdiction. If the local enforcement agency denies the proposed alternative, the regulations allow an applicant to submit a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of the alternative. The regulations further provide that approval of an alternative by either the local enforcement agency or the SFM does not establish a precedent for future requests.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM's jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the CBSC's general jurisdiction.

Gutted. This bill was gutted and amended into a new policy in June 2026.

According to the Author

"AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California's 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied."

Arguments in Support

According to California YIMBY and SPUR, "The bill clarifies the California Building Standards Commission's authority to hear and decide appeals to promulgate code interpretations, and it allows any person to request an interpretation of the intent of a provision the Commission has adopted – so that applicants are not forced to re-litigate the same technical questions jurisdiction by jurisdiction. It creates an appeals pathway for local decisions that raise issues of statewide significance, including requests to use alternate materials, assemblies, equipment, or methods of construction, giving applicants recourse when local decisions diverge from state standards. And it requires that both Commission decision and Commission interpretations be posted in a searchable format online, and that local written rules and policies be posted on the local agency's website, clearly identified as a local interpretation and linked to the related local amendments and express findings."

According to the American Institute of Architects California, "Importantly, AB 306 builds upon processes already successfully utilized elsewhere in state government. The Office of the State Fire Marshal and the Division of the State Architect both maintain longstanding appeals and interpretation processes that provide clarity and consistency in the administration of building standards. AB 306 extends similar concepts to matters falling within the jurisdiction of the California Building Standards Commission. The bill has also been significantly amended in response to stakeholder concerns and now includes a number of important guardrails to preserve local authority."

Arguments in Opposition

According to the California Building Officials, "In our professional opinion, AB 306 will benefit a narrow group of for-profit interests that seek to fast-track approvals on their products and practices. In our experience, local familiarity and relationships between most construction and design professionals aid in expediting permit approvals. What works in a mountainous climate zone, as code officials understand, does not hold true for coastal urban environments. A "one size fits all" approach to code interpretations simply jeopardizes public safety. Building code enforcement requires professional judgement and local accountability. The existence of differing interpretations does not demonstrate system failure. It reflects the reality that building safety decisions are site-specific and operationally dependent to address specific safety concerns.

AB 306 also places considerable responsibility upon the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). We work daily with the BSC and are very familiar with their capabilities and capacities. It is important to note that the BSC – staff and appointed commission – are a highly administrative body as opposed to technical experts. Adding the necessary staff and overhead expenses to the BSC would result in significant cost to the Department of General Services and overall California state budget. As outlined in the Terner Center report on California's Building Code Appeals process in 2025, local officials rely heavily upon larger administrative decision-making bodies for appeals. This is part of the problem outlined by the report, which is only going to be exacerbated when elevated to a higher-level statewide decision-making body. Hearings will be few and far between, which will only add to the problem as opposed to offering a solution."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

1. The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (DGS Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.
2. Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

VOTES:

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson, Gabriel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0-9

YES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Essayli, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Rivas

ABS, ABST OR NV: Addis, Alvarez, Boerner, Caloza, Connolly, Davies, Hart, Wicks, Zbur

UPDATED

VERSION: July 2, 2026

CONSULTANT: Juan Reyes / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0004260

 THIRD READING  

Bill No: AB 306

Author: Schultz (D), Hadwick (R) and Wicks (D)

Amended: 7/2/26 in Senate

Vote: 21

SENATE HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/24/26

AYES: Arreguín, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla

SENATE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/1/26

AYES: Durazo, Choi, Arreguín, Ashby, Cervantes, Laird, Seyarto

SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 7-0, 8/13/26

AYES: Cervantes, Seyarto, Cabaldon, Dahle, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 4/1/25 - See last page for vote

SUBJECT: California Building Standards Commission: appeals: code interpretations

SOURCE: American Institute of Architects California

DIGEST:

This bill requires the California Building Standards Commission (BSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agencies implementation of the California Building Standards Code (state building code), and to issue code interpretations, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the BSC within the Department of General Services, and requires the BSC to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the state building code. Requires BSC to publish editions of the state building code in its entirety once every three years. In the intervening period, the BSC must publish supplements as necessary.
2. Requires BSC to receive proposed building standards from a state agency for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle. Requires BSC to adopt regulations governing the procedures for the 18-month code adoption cycle.
3. Provides that requirements and standards published in the state building code and other regulations take effect 180 days after publication by the BSC.
4. Allows a city or county, in adopting ordinances or regulations to adopt the state building code to make changes or modifications in the requirements of the state building code and other regulations, including green building standards, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
5. Requires the governing body of a city or county, before making any modifications or changes, to make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, and requires those findings as well as the modification or change expressly marked and identified to be filed with the BSC. Prohibits a modification or change from becoming effective or operative until the finding and modification or change have been filed with BSC.
6. Requires BSC to reject any proposed modification or changes to any building standards affecting residential units at the state and local level from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.
7. Authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency regarding the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission.
8. Provides that if any local agency with authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of such agency both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the BSC, then both parties may appeal to the BSC. The BSC may accept such appeal only if the BSC determines that the issues involved in such appeal have statewide significance.

This bill:

1. Clarifies and adds the following to BSC’s base duties relative to the state building code:
   1. Specifies that the BSC must issue decisions on appeals regarding administration of the state building code.
   2. Requires the BSC to promulgate code interpretations.
2. Clarifies that any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard respecting a state building standard may appeal the issue for resolution to the BSC without the local agency that issued the adverse action agreeing to appeal the issue.
3. Allows an appeal requested jointly by a person adversely impacted by a local agency, and the local agency enforcing the decision, to go to the BSC directly without exhausting the local appeals process.
4. Provides that that an appeal may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that an appeal that results in the approval of an alternative shall be limited to the particular case and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for future requests.
5. Provides that the BSC may only accept an appeal if the appeal deals with an issue of statewide significance, and the person seeking the appeal has exhausted local appeals procedures.
6. Requires the BSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited, to representatives of the building industry, local agencies that have authority to enforce building standards, and labor organizations.
7. Provides that any person may request a code interpretation from the BSC regarding the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the BSC. Specifies that if the request is related to a specific project the BSC shall review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency prior to rendering an interpretation.
8. Provides that decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the BSC shall be posted on the BSC’s website in a searchable format.
9. Requires local enforcement agencies that issue written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application the state building code to post them on agencies website as specified.

Background

Building Standards. The California Building Standards Law establishes the process for adopting state building standards by BSC. Statewide building standards are intended to provide uniformity in buildings across the state. The BSC's duties include the following: receiving proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in each triennial and intervening building code adoption cycle; reviewing and approving building standards submitted by state agencies; adopting building standards for state buildings where no other state agency is authorized by law; and publishing the approved building standards in the state building code.

Comments

1. Author’s Statement. “AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California’s 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied.”
2. Appeals. BSC is required by statute to adopt and maintain the state building code. The BSC’s duties include an obligation to hear appeals brought by a person adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice by a local agency charged with implementing the state building code. The statute requires the BSC to “hear” these appeals, but there is no affirmative obligation for the BSC to deny, approve or to other wise issue any decision related to the appeal. Additionally, the authority to appeal an action by an agency related to the state building code is vague and ambiguous. Existing law states that if a local agency and a person adversely affected by a decision of the local agency relative to the state building code both wish to appeal an issue to the BSC for resolution, then both parties may appeal to the BSC. Existing law could be interpreted to only allow appeals when the local agency that issued the decision that will be appealed agrees to submit an appeal with the person adversely impacted by the local agency. It is unlikely that a local agency will join an appeal seeking to reverse the local agency’s original decision.

This bill will clarify that a person adversely impacted by a local agency’s decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the BSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency’s decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the BSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the BSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

1. Alternative materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for promulgating regulations that promote fire and life safety for inclusion in the state building code. The SFM also adopts regulations related to fire hazard severity zones. The SFM established a process where an applicant may request approval of an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection from the local agency responsible for enforcing aspects of the state building code within the jurisdiction of the SFM. The SFM regulations also provide a process for an applicant to file a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of an alternative that was denied by the local agency. The SFM regulations specify that any appeal that is approved by a local enforcement agency, or the SFM, shall not be construed as establishing precedent for any future request.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM’s jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the BSC’s general jurisdiction.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes

According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:

• The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (DGS Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.
  
• Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

SUPPORT: (Verified 8/13/2026)

American Institute of Architects California (Source)

Abundant Housing LA

Bay Area Council

California Apartment Association

California Conference of Carpenters

California Yimby

Construction Employers' Association

Council of Infill Builders

Eden Housing

House Sacramento

Housing Action Coalition

Housing California

Los Angeles County

Phillips Win Architecture

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association

Studio One Eleven

Usgbc California

Valley Industry and Commerce Association

OPPOSITION: (Verified 8/13/2026)

California Building Officials

County Building Officials Association of California

City of Oceanside

ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 71-0, 4/1/25

AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Arambula, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Chen, DeMaio, Dixon, Elhawary, Ellis, Essayli, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Jeff Gonzalez, Mark González, Hadwick, Haney, Harabedian, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Kalra, Krell, Lackey, Lee, Lowenthal, Macedo, McKinnor, Muratsuchi, Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Solache, Soria, Stefani, Ta, Tangipa, Valencia, Wallis, Ward, Wilson, Rivas

NO VOTE RECORDED: Addis, Alvarez, Boerner, Caloza, Connolly, Davies, Hart, Wicks, Zbur

Prepared by: Hank Brady / HOUSING / (916) 651-4124

8/14/26 10:35:56

**** END ****

SENATE COMMITTEE ON

Senator Sabrina Cervantes, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

AB 306 (Schultz) - California Building Standards Commission: appeals: code interpretations

Bill Summary:

AB 306 would require the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agency’s implementation of the California Building Standards Code, and to issue code interpretations relative to the intent of any regulation, as specified. The bill would also require local enforcement agencies to post on their websites any local interpretations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code, as specified.

Fiscal Impact:

• The CBSC estimates ongoing costs of approximately $1.1 million annually beginning in 2028-29 for 4.0 PY of new staff, and additional unknown annual costs, at least in the tens of thousands annually, to periodically contract with subject matter experts and firms with specialized technical knowledge in particular areas of construction in order to make informed appeals and code interpretation decisions. CBSC may also incur unknown significant one-time costs to make IT improvements, to the extent an online portal for electronic filing of appeals is needed (DGS Service Revolving Fund). The CBSC also notes that its current office space cannot accommodate the addition of new permanent staff, and that it may have to incur additional one-time office relocation costs and increased annual office leasing costs. See Staff Comments.
  
• Unknown local costs, potentially significant in the aggregate, for local enforcement agencies to post on their respective websites any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies those rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, as specified. These costs are potentially reimbursable by the state, subject to a determination by the Commission on State Mandates. (General Fund)

Background:

Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, authorizes the CBSC to approve and adopt building standards through a triennial rulemaking process to revise and update the California Building Standards Code. These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (the Building Code), fire safety standards (the Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (the Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen). There are approximately twenty state agencies that develop building standards for submittal to the CBSC for review, approval, and adoption, and in the absence of a designated state agency, the CBSC is required to adopt specific building standards, as prescribed. Building standards take effect 180 days after they are published, unless a different date is specified. The most recent update to the California Building Standards Code, the 2025 Triennial Edition, is in effect from January 1, 2026 until December 31, 2028.

Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. Existing law authorizes a city or county, in adopting ordinances or regulations to adopt the state building code, to make changes or modifications in the requirements of the state building code and other regulations, including green building standards, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. The local governing body must make a specified finding to justify modifications and file those findings and the adopted local standards with the CBSC.

The Building Standards Code allows local building and fire officials to approve alternative materials, designs, or methods of construction that are not specifically spelled out in the code, but achieve the intent of the code’s provision and provide equivalent quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. The State Fire Marshal may also approve materials, means, and methods that are an alternative to the provisions of the Fire Code. Approval of a request for use of alternate materials, means, or methods of protection are limited to a particular case covered by a request and are not precedential for future requests.

The Building Standards Code requires every city or county to establish a process to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, and determinations made by local officials. A city or county can choose to establish a local appeals board, which cannot include employees of the jurisdiction, but if no board is established, the city council or board of supervisors acts as the appellate body. Existing law authorizes any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard, and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of that agency, to jointly appeal the issue for resolution to the CBSC. The CBSC may accept such an appeal only if it determines that the issues involved have statewide significance, as specified.

Proposed Law:

AB 306 would authorize any person adversely affected by a decision of a local enforcement agency with the authority to enforce a state building standard to appeal the issue for resolution by the CBSC, regardless of whether the local agency participates in the appeal. Specifically, this bill would:

• Authorize an appeal to include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Approval of such a request would be limited to the particular case covered by the appeal and would not establish a precedent for any future request.
• Authorize the CBSC to approve a request to use an alternative material, equipment, or method only if it is not specifically prohibited, restricted, or regulated in the Building Standards Code, and it has not been specifically rejected for inclusion.
• Authorize the CBSC to accept an appeal only if it determines that the issues involved have statewide significance and the person seeking the appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures. The latter condition would not be required if the person and local agency have jointly requested an appeal.
• Require the CBSC to review an issue subject to an appeal with specified stakeholders, including building industry representatives, local agencies, and labor organizations.
• Authorize any person to request a code interpretation from the CBSC relative to the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the CBSC. If the code interpretation request is related to a specific project, the CBSC must review the issue with the appropriate local enforcement agency before rendering an interpretation.
• Require the CBSC to post decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the CBSC on its website in a searchable format.

AB 306 would also require a local enforcement agency to post on its website any written rules and regulations that clarify the application of the Building Standards Code in a manner that clearly identifies the rules or regulations as a local interpretation or policy, and to link those rules and regulations to any related local amendments and express findings.

Related Legislation:

AB 130 (Committee on Budget), Chap. 22/2025, prohibited the CBSC and cities and counties from considering, approving, adopting, or modifying any proposed building standards affecting residential development, with limited exceptions, until June 1, 2031.

Staff Comments:

The CBSC indicates that its current leased space cannot accommodate the addition of permanent staff necessary to implement an expanded appeals process, and that it may need to relocate its offices to a new space with a conference space that can accommodate monthly commission meetings to hear and decide appeals and code interpretations. One-time office relocation costs could be as high as $1.6 million, with annual ongoing rent increases related to a larger office space of approximately $109,000, beginning in 2028-29, plus additional one-time rent payments of approximately $104,000 to continue to pay rent on the current leased space until May 1, 2029. Staff notes that these costs are not directly attributable to the requirements of this bill.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

California Building Standards Commission: appeals: code interpretations

Requires the California Building Standards Commission to decide appeals and issue code interpretations regarding a local agency’s implementation of the California Building Standards.

Background

The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

State Housing Law. Prior to 1962, the Legislature established minimum building requirements for dwellings in statutory form, and these requirements only applied to incorporated cities, unless a county voluntarily adopted them. In 1962, the Legislature enacted State Housing Law, which provides requirements and procedures for uniform statewide code enforcement to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and accessory buildings. Among other things, State Housing Law delegates responsibility to state administrative agencies for the adoption of building standards, applies state building codes uniformly, and directs local agencies’ administration of code enforcement.

Building codes. The California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (the Building Code), fire safety standards (the Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (the Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

Numerous state agencies propose standards to BSC for adoption, including, among others:

• The Department of Housing and Community Development, which proposes standards related to residential dwellings;
• The Office of the State Fire Marshal, which proposes fire and panic safety standards across all occupancies in the Fire Code;
• The California Energy Commission, which proposes energy efficiency standards in the Energy Code; and
• The Division of the State Architect, which proposes standards for public and historical building standards.

The BSC updates the Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle—the BSC published new standards that went into effect on January 1, 2026. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. New construction and improvements to existing buildings must comply with the current building codes, and improvements to an existing building may trigger additional code upgrades for other parts of a building.

Cities and counties may adopt their own local building code requirements, so long as they make a finding that the changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. Cities and counties must file these findings and the adopted standards with the BSC. The California Green Building Standards Code provides that local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions include environmental conditions established by the city or county, meaning they can adopt more stringent green building requirements than the state codes. The CEC must approve these “reach codes” as cost effective and at least as energy efficient as state standards before they go into effect.

AB 130 (Committee on Budget, 2025) prohibited the Building Standards Commission and cities and counties from modifying building standards applicable to residential development until June 1, 2031, with a few limited exceptions.

Administrative permit approvals. A builder may need a range of administrative permits from the local agency in order to actually complete the work to construct or modify a building. These permits can include building permits and other permits for: demolition; grading; excavation; electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work; encroachment in the public right-of-way; roofing; water and sewer connections or septic systems; fire sprinklers; and home occupations.

City and county building departments enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and local zoning codes that specify the allowable forms and uses of buildings within a city or county’s jurisdiction. Within building departments, the positions responsible for evaluating building permits for compliance include building officials, inspectors, plan checkers, and civil engineers. State Housing Law also allows local agencies to hire private entities on a temporary basis to perform plan checking services. Some agencies contract out a portion of their workload during especially busy times, or certain portions of the building permit review process, such as reviewing compliance with energy efficiency requirements. Other local agencies contract out nearly all plan checking functions to a private firm.

State law and the Building Standards Code explicitly provide building officials broad authority as part of their enforcement authority to render interpretations of the code and to adopt policies and procedures to clarify the application of its provisions.

Alternative materials, means, and methods. The California Building Standards Code allows local building and fire officials to approve alternative materials, designs, or methods of construction that are not specifically spelled out in the code, but achieve the intent of the provision of the code and provide equivalent quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. The State Fire Marshal may also approve materials, means, and methods that are an alternative to the provisions of the Fire Code. Approval of a request for use of alternate materials, means, or methods of protection are limited to the particular case covered by request and are not precedential for future requests.

Post-entitlement permitting. In 2022, the Legislature enacted a framework establishing timelines and procedures for approving all local “post-entitlement phase permits,” including building permits, needed to construct housing that had already received approval from a planning department (AB 2234, R. Rivas, 2022). AB 2234 requires local agencies—defined to mean only cities and counties—to process post-entitlement permits in an expedited manner, with clear timelines and procedures for determining an application to be complete and reviewing it for compliance with the law, to limit surprises to homebuilders.

AB 301 (Schiavo, 2025) extended most of AB 2234’s provisions to state agency permits for housing projects, except certain water pollution permits and permits issued by the Coastal Commission. It also deemed approved state post-entitlement permits if state agencies fail to meet the timeline to approve or deny the permit.

Building permit appeals. A variety of separate appeals procedures govern building permits, including:

• Building code appeal process. The Building Standards Code requires every city or county to establish a process to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, and determinations made by local officials. A city or county can choose to establish a local appeals board, which cannot include employees of the jurisdiction. If no board is established, the city council or board of supervisors is the appellate body.
• Appeals of post-entitlement permits. Under AB 2234, cities, counties, and state agencies must allow an appeal of a post-entitlement permit denial. Cities or counties may choose whether to allow an appeal to the planning commission, the city council or board of supervisors, or both. If an applicant appeals, the city or county must make a final determination on the appeal within: (1) 60 business days of the appeal for a project of 25 units or fewer; or (2) 90 business days of the appeal for a project of 26 units or more.
• BSC appeals process. Any local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of that agency can jointly appeal the issue for resolution to BSC. The BSC can only hear the appeal if it determines that the issues involved in the appeal have statewide significance. The local official must participate; the person adversely affected cannot make an appeal to BSC alone.
• State Fire Marshal processes. The Fire Code allows a person to ask the State Fire Marshal to interpret the Fire Code. These individuals submit requests to the State Fire Marshal’s Code Interpretation Committee. When the request relates to a specific project, occupancy or building, the State Fire Marshal must review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before issuing a code interpretation. Once the Code Interpretation Committee reaches a decision, it posts it online, where it serves as guidance to fire officials statewide. An applicant that receives a denial of an alternative materials, means, or methods request may also appeal that denial to the State Fire Marshal.

Recent research has documented challenges with some of the current appeals processes.^[1] The Terner Center for Housing Innovation at the University of California, Berkeley (Terner Center) raised numerous concerns that it argues impair housing development in the state. The Terner Center notes:

“When local building officials err or impose prohibitively expensive interpretations of code, there are few good options for builders to seek redress. State law generally requires the cooperation of the local building official to submit a formal request for clarification to a state entity, a process rarely used in practice… BSC staff report that such appeals have been filed perhaps once or twice in the past 15 years… And while existing law provides builders with the ability to challenge a local code determination through a local appeals board, few cities and counties have created such boards. Further, state law stipulates that local jurisdictions that have not bothered to create local appeals boards should simply have their governing bodies (city council or board of supervisors) act as an appeals board. This leads to a system where an appeal by a builder is most likely to be heard by a body without relevant technical expertise that is also employing the same city staff person whose code-related decision is being contested.

“For developers and homeowners alike, these inconsistencies and inabilities to effectively contest costly local amendments or interpretations can translate into delays, mandated redesigns, and added costs that ripple through the system.”

The American Institute of Architects want the Legislature to revise the BSC appeals process to match other models.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 306 allows an appeal to the BSC by any person adversely affected by a decision of the local enforcement agency, regardless of whether the local agency participates. It allows an appeal to include a request for approval to use an alternate material, means, or method. If approved, that alternative is limited to the particular case covered by the request and does not establish a precedent for any future request.

The BSC can only accept an appeal if:

• The BSC determines that the issues involved have statewide significance; and
• The person seeking to appeal has exhausted all local appeals procedures, unless the local agency joins the appeal to the BSC.

The BSC must review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited to, representatives of the building industry, local agencies having authority to enforce a state building standard, and labor organizations.

AB 306 also allows any person to request a code interpretation from the BSC regarding the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the BSC. When the request relates to a specific project, occupancy, or building, BSC must review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency before rendering the code interpretation.

The BSC must post the decisions on appeals and code interpretations online in a searchable format. AB 306 also requires local enforcement agencies to post rules and regulations that implement or interpret

AB 306 makes additional technical and conforming changes, and includes findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California’s 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied.”

2. How will this work? The State Fire Marshal’s processes for issuing code interpretations and reviewing alternative materials, means, and methods are generally well regarded, despite the potential for it to be used adversarially by builders seeking to overturn local decisions. Among the reasons that the process functions well is that the State Fire Marshal must review any challenge to a local agency’s decision with the local agency themselves, fostering a collaborative approach. AB 306 imports many of the features from the current State Fire Marshal process to the BSC’s process. The bill allows appeals of building permit decisions by local building officials, even if the building officials don’t agree. It also explicitly includes alternative means and methods, consistent with the State Fire Marshal review process. But it also maintains important safeguards to ensure that it doesn’t undermine local building officials’ determinations that were made in the interest of public safety. First, it requires exhaustion of local appeals processes before an applicant can appeal to the BSC and retains the limitation that BSC can only review decisions with statewide import, so that frivolous claims stop before they reach BSC. Second, it provides that alternative means, materials, and methods are not precedential, so that appeals of decisions on these alternatives don’t become a backdoor amendment to the building code. Finally, it requires consultation with stakeholders, including the local agency that issued the decision that is being appealed, to ensure that all viewpoints are represented in the decisions it issues. AB 306 strikes a balance between creating more pathways for lowering the cost of construction and ensuring that public safety is protected.

3. Let’s be clear. Alternative materials, means, and methods are intended to be just that: alternatives to the code. They are not intended to be a means to circumvent explicit prohibitions. AB 306 allows appeals of determinations regarding these alternatives. It includes some safeguards so that the process doesn’t create loopholes in the codes, but some ambiguity remains. The Committee may wish to consider amending AB 306 to specify that an alternative may be approved only if it: (1) is not specifically prohibited, restricted or otherwise regulated in the California Building Standards Code; and (2) has not been rejected for inclusion in the California Building Standards Code.

4. Gut and amend. As introduced, AB 306 prohibited code changes, similar to the prohibitions enacted by AB 130. The Committee never heard that version of the bill. The May 21, 2026, amendments struck the contents of the bill and inserted provisions relating to appeals of building standards.

5. Charter city. The California Constitution allows cities that adopt charters to control their own “municipal affairs.” In all other matters, charter cities must follow the general, statewide laws. Because the Constitution doesn’t define “municipal affairs,” the courts determine whether a topic is a municipal affair or whether it’s an issue of statewide concern. AB 306 says that it applies to all cities, including charter cities. To support this assertion, the bill includes a legislative finding and declaration that the bill addresses a matter of statewide concern.

6. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 306 imposes new duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says it imposes a new state mandate. AB 306 states that if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill imposes a reimbursable mandate, then reimbursement must be made pursuant to existing statutory provisions.

7. Incoming! The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 306: first to the Committee on Housing, which approved AB 306 at its June 24^th hearing on a vote of 10-0, and second to the Committee on Local Government.

8. Related legislation. AB 1621 (Wilson) shortens the time for cities and counties to process appeals of post-entitlement permits, including building permits, to 30 business days for a project of up to 25 units and 45 business days for a project of 26 or more units. It also requires appeals to go directly to a city council or board of supervisors, instead of the planning commission.

Assembly Actions

Prior votes not relevant to the current version of the bill.

Support and Opposition

(6/26/26)

Support:
American Institute of Architects California (Sponsor)
Bay Area Council
California Apartment Association
Eden Housing
Housing Action Coalition
Los Angeles County
Studio One Eleven
Usgbc California

Opposition:
California Building Officials
City of Oceanside

-- END --

1. Terner Center, “California’s Building Code Appeals Process: A Quiet but Crucial Lever for Housing.” November 24, 2025. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON HOUSING

Senator Jesse Arreguin, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: AB 306 Hearing Date: 6/24/2026

SUBJECT: Building regulations: state building standards

DIGEST: This bill requires the California Building Standards Commission (BSC) to hear and decide appeals regarding a local agencies implementation of the California Building Standards Code (state building code), and to issue code interpretations, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes the BSC within the Department of General Services, and requires the BSC to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the state building code. Requires BSC to publish editions of the state building code in its entirety once every three years. In the intervening period, the BSC must publish supplements as necessary.
2. Requires BSC to receive proposed building standards from a state agency for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle. Requires BSC to adopt regulations governing the procedures for the 18-month code adoption cycle.
3. Provides that requirements and standards published in the state building code and other regulations take effect 180 days after publication by the BSC.
4. Allows a city or county, in adopting ordinances or regulations to adopt the state building code to make changes or modifications in the requirements of the state building code and other regulations, including green building standards, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions.
5. Requires the governing body of a city or county, before making any modifications or changes, to make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, and requires those findings as well as the modification or change expressly marked and identified to be filed with the BSC. Prohibits a modification or change from becoming effective or operative until the finding and modification or change have been filed with BSC.
6. Requires BSC to reject any proposed modification or changes to any building standards affecting residential units at the state and local level from October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.
7. Authorizes any person adversely affected by any regulation, rules, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of any state agency regarding the administration of any building standard to appeal the issue for resolution to the commission.
8. Provides that if any local agency with authority to enforce a state building standard and any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of such agency both wish to appeal the issue for resolution to the BSC, then both parties may appeal to the BSC. The BSC may accept such appeal only if the BSC determines that the issues involved in such appeal have statewide significance.

This bill:

1. Clarifies and adds the following to BSC’s base duties relative to the state building code:
   1. Specifies that the BSC must issue decisions on appeals regarding administration of the state building code.
   2. Requires the BSC to promulgate code interpretations.
2. Clarifies that any person adversely affected by any regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice of a local agency having authority to enforce a state building standard respecting a state building standard may appeal the issue for resolution to the BSC without the local agency that issued the adverse action agreeing to appeal the issue.
3. Allows an appeal requested jointly by a person adversely impacted by a local agency, and the local agency enforcing the decision, to go to the BSC directly without exhausting the local appeals process.
4. Provides that that an appeal may include a request for approval to use an alternate material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction method of installation of equipment, or means of protection. Provides that an appeal that results in the approval of an alternative shall be limited to the particular case and shall not be construed as establishing any precedent for future requests.
5. Provides that the BSC may only accept an appeal if the appeal deals with an issue of statewide significance, and the person seeking the appeal has exhausted local appeals procedures.
6. Requires the BSC to review an appeal with stakeholders, including, but not limited, to representatives of the building industry, local agencies that have authority to enforce building standards, and labor organizations.
7. Provides that any person may request a code interpretation from the BSC regarding the intent of any regulation or provision adopted by the BSC. Specifies that if the request is related to a specific project the BSC shall review the issue with the appropriate local enforcing agency prior to rendering an interpretation.
8. Provides that decisions on appeals and code interpretations issued by the BSC shall be posted on the BSC’s website in a searchable format.
9. Requires local enforcement agencies that issue written rules and regulations intended to clarify the application the state building code to post them on agencies website as specified.

Background

Building Standards. The California Building Standards Law establishes the process for adopting state building standards by BSC. Statewide building standards are intended to provide uniformity in buildings across the state. The BSC's duties include the following: receiving proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in each triennial and intervening building code adoption cycle; reviewing and approving building standards submitted by state agencies; adopting building standards for state buildings where no other state agency is authorized by law; and publishing the approved building standards in the state building code.

There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to the BSC. After the proposal of building standards by state agencies, the standards undergo a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the BSC for consideration. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is responsible for the standards for residential buildings, hotels and motels.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin two years before the effective date of the codes. AB 130 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025) imposed a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031.

Comments

1. Author’s Statement. “AB 306 addresses a practical yet underexamined barrier to housing delivery in California: the absence of a functional statewide process for resolving significant building code disputes. Today, identical code provisions can be interpreted differently across California’s 540 jurisdictions, and innovative materials, methods, and housing types often must be approved on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. That inconsistency creates delays, uncertainty, and unnecessary costs. This bill establishes a more workable state-level framework for appeals, code interpretations, and code equivalency determinations when issues have statewide significance. It also improves transparency by requiring that code interpretations and local amendments be posted on line, and linked where applicable to findings and express terms. AB 306 does not eliminate local authority or lower safety standards. Local agencies retain their authority to adopt more restrictive standards where authorized by law and supported by required findings, and local officials retain case-by-case authority over alternative methods and materials. This bill creates a clearer path to state level consistency, transparency, and accountability in code administration. If California is serious about housing production efficiency, adaptive reuse, and scaling construction innovation, we must also modernize the systems that determine how our building codes are interpreted and applied.”
2. Appeals. BSC is required by statute to adopt and maintain the state building code. The BSC’s duties include an obligation to hear appeals brought by a person adversely affected by a regulation, rule, omission, interpretation, decision, or practice by a local agency charged with implementing the state building code. The statute requires the BSC to “hear” these appeals, but there is no affirmative obligation for the BSC to deny, approve or to other wise issue any decision related to the appeal. Additionally, the authority to appeal an action by an agency related to the state building code is vague and ambiguous. Existing law states that if a local agency and a person adversely affected by a decision of the local agency relative to the state building code both wish to appeal an issue to the BSC for resolution, then both parties may appeal to the BSC. Existing law could be interpreted to only allow appeals when the local agency that issued the decision that will be appealed agrees to submit an appeal with the person adversely impacted by the local agency. It is unlikely that a local agency will join an appeal seeking to reverse the local agency’s original decision.

This bill will clarify that a person adversely impacted by a local agency’s decision relative to the state building code may appeal that decision to the BSC after exhausting local appeals. For any appeal that is jointly filed by a local agency and a person affected by the local agency’s decision on the state building code, the appellants are not required to exhaust the local appeals process. This bill will additionally clarify that the BSC is not only obliged to hear appeals, but that the BSC must issue a decision on appeals that are heard.

1. Alternative materials and methods. The State Fire Marshal (SFM) is responsible for promulgating regulations that promote fire and life safety for inclusion in the state building code. The SFM also adopts regulations related to fire hazard severity zones. The SFM established a process where an applicant may request approval of an alternative material, assembly of materials, equipment, method of construction, method of installation, or means of protection from the local agency responsible for enforcing aspects of the state building code within the jurisdiction of the SFM. The SFM regulations also provide a process for an applicant to file a written appeal to the SFM requesting approval of an alternative that was denied by the local agency. The SFM regulations specify that any appeal that is approved by a local enforcement agency, or the SFM, shall not be construed as establishing precedent for any future request.

This bill seeks to replicate the SFM appeal process that is relative to aspects of the state building code within the SFM’s jurisdiction to aspects of the state building code in the BSC’s general jurisdiction.

1. Exhausting local remedies. This bill specifies that a person submitting an appeal to the BSC must exhaust local remedies prior to filing an appeal, unless the local agency is jointly filing the appeal. Postentitlement Phase Permit (PePP) Law establishes timeframes for local agencies to complete appeals on postentitlement phase permits. PePP Law establishes appeal timelines for residential building permits that a local agency determines noncompliant. Local agencies that determine a PePP, such as a building permit, is not compliant must complete an appeal requested by an applicant within 60-90 days (depending on the size of the project). A local decision that a residential building permit is not compliant with state building code would be subject to the appeal timeframes in PePP law. The final denial of an appeal of a decision on a building permit would constitute the exhaustion of local remedies.
2. Opposition. Several groups including the California Building Officials and the California State Pipe Trades Council wrote in opposition to an earlier version of the bill. Among several items they express concerns with allowing alternative materials and methods to establish precedent and to be approved at a state level.

Related/Prior Legislation

AB 2234 (Rivas, Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022) — established timeframes for the review of postentitlement permits conducted by local governments.

AB 130 (Committee on Budget, Chapter 22, Statutes of 2025) — prohibits the BSC and any other adopting agency, from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units, with limited exceptions. Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from October 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions. Requires BSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from October 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: Fiscal Com.: Local:

POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday, June 17^th, 2026.)

SUPPORT:

American Institute of Architects California (Sponsor)

California Apartment Association

California Conference of Carpenters

Construction Employers' Association

Council of Infill Builders

Housing Action Coalition

Housing California

Phillips Win Architecture

San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR)

USGBC California

OPPOSITION:

California Building Officials
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
County Building Officials Association of California
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 306

Author:(Schultz and Rivas)

As Amended Ver:March 12, 2025

2/3 vote. Urgency

SUMMARY

Imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions.

Major Provisions

1. Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless any of the following conditions is met:
   1. The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
   2. The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM);
   3. The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation to the SFM's study of standards for single-exit, single stairway apartment houses with more than two dwelling units in buildings above three stories; or
   4. The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to an adaptive reuse standards working group, to reduce potable water use in new residential buildings, or to support risk-based water quality standards for the onsite treatment and reuse of nonpotable water for certain residential buildings, as specified.
2. Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
   1. The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025;
   2. The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
   3. The changes or modifications relate to home hardening; or
   4. The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
3. Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in 2) above is met.
4. Includes an urgency clause.

COMMENTS

Background on Building Standards: Most building standards in use in California are developed and vetted at the national level every three years by technical organizations, academics, and trade associations that develop national consensus standards, which are then incorporated into the International Building Code (IBC), the national model code. State agencies with authority over various occupancies then review the IBC and amend as necessary for California's specific needs. There are around 20 state agencies that develop and propose standards via a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the CBSC for consideration. CBSC reviews and adopts the standards and files them with the Secretary of State for codification and publishing, and there is a 180-day period during which local agencies file modifications and changes to the state codes (though they are not limited to this window). The new codes then take effect January 1 of the subsequent year following publication. Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes.

Local Amendments to State Codes: Local governments are provided wide latitude to make changes and modifications to the state codes – so long as they exceed or are more protective than the state baseline, not a reduction – and for codes affecting residential buildings (excluding energy "reach codes" which follow a different process), neither the CBSC nor statute requires the local modifications to include any cost determinations or economic impact analysis. Local governments simply have to include a finding in their filing with the CBSC that the modifications are "reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions" (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 17958.7) or environmental conditions for green building standards. CBSC does not currently have the authority to review these findings for validity, merits, or the justification of reasonableness, nor do the local amendments have to follow more rigorous state review criteria requiring state building standards to "not [be] unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part" (HSC 18930(a)(4)) or have a "cost to the public [that is] reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards" (HSC 18930(a)(5)).

Los Angeles Wildfires and Rebuilding Challenges: The fires in Southern California that began on January 7th displaced tens of thousands of Los Angeles County residents. Once the fires were extinguished, more than 13,000 homes and apartments had been destroyed. Disasters compound existing housing market challenges and the Los Angeles region had been in a severe housing affordability crisis well before the sudden destruction of 13,000 housing units. Many of the homes that burned in the fires were built decades ago, even before the state had adopted certain building standards which are now extremely robust, like the Energy Code which was first adopted in the late 1970s. In addition, not all affected properties were insured, or had minimal insurance that likely lacked building code upgrade/replacement coverage. Thus, some owners will not be able to draw on insurance payouts to assist with rebuilding older homes and apartments up to current code, as is generally required. Since these older homes and apartments were built, there have been many additions to state and local code requirements that owners will have to incorporate into their rebuilding plans in order to be issued building permits, including requirements to install fire sprinklers in all new dwellings, solar panels and battery storage in certain types of residential construction, larger electrical panel capacity and more 240V outlets for electric vehicles and appliances, and more.

It is likely to take fire victims who wish to rebuild several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or FEMA financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction. Given this lengthy rebuilding timeline and the frequency of code changes every 18 months, building codes will continue to be modified during the rebuilding period. While not all code modifications are significant, further changes to these requirements may present challenges to fire victims as building codes only "lock in" when a person receives a building permit from a local government.

Key Provisions of This Bill: This bill would impose a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. There are a small number of exceptions – first, if the standards are proposed via the existing emergency standards process and the CBSC agrees with the proposing agency that the standards meet the criteria for emergency adoption. Second, if the standards are proposed by the SFM and relate to home hardening. And third, for recently enacted legislation that directed code agencies to study and recommend changes to standards related to single-exit single stairway apartments, adaptive reuse of nonresidential buildings for residential uses, and the reduction of potable water use and treatment and reuse of nonpotable water in certain multifamily buildings.

This bill would also impose a six-year moratorium on the adoption of new local amendments and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Local agencies would be permitted to re-file amendments or modifications that are substantially equivalent to those that they already had in effect as of January 1, 2025 – in effect a "hold harmless" to allow the reauthorization of any local standards that are already in place – but new amendments impacting residential units would not be permitted unless they meet limited exceptions similar to the state exceptions.

Individuals may still choose to exceed the state baseline codes, as they always have the option to do. In addition, proposals impacting new and existing non-residential buildings would still be permitted to continue. All the items contained in the most recent triennial code that will take effect January 1, 2026 will continue to go into effect as planned, as those codes have already been adopted by the CBSC. Code agencies will still be able to bring new proposals to the CBSC through the emergency standards process if there is justification for the urgency of those standards. And agencies and stakeholders may continue to work on other non-emergency items and could have them ready to propose immediately upon expiration of the moratorium.

Frequency of Code Changes: Building codes are updated every 18 to 36 months. This frequency of changes means that when agencies are publishing final versions of triennial codes, they are already beginning to coordinate proposed changes for the next cycle before the ink is barely dry on the new codes. This rush to begin formulating amendments to codes that have not yet actually taken effect raises a number of concerns. Triennial and intervening code cycles effectively "back up" into each other, given the intensive calendar of code advisory committee reviews, public comment periods, and staff resources that must be allocated to develop and vet new changes and comply with regulatory timelines. The speediness of new changes also raises questions regarding the cost analyses that are required for standards, given there may not have been sufficient time for developments to have completed construction under the new standards (many projects take longer than 18 months to complete) and have quality data that agency staff can utilize when performing these cost analyses. Some agencies, like the Energy Commission, must perform more granular cost-effectiveness analyses of new standards, although these are amortized over an anticipated 30-year timeframe and involve complex energy and construction cost modeling.

Furthermore, once codes are in effect, a large array of individuals have to be trained up to the new requirements – including local building officials who are charged with implementing and enforcing the codes, planners and architects who design projects, contractors and subcontractors who are managing projects, various tradespeople responsible for the specific construction work, and building inspectors who have to sign off on the work being completed up to the relevant codes in effect at the time building permits were pulled. Temporarily pausing further changes will allow the current workforce and local building officials to learn the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to re-learn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

In addition, given the lengthy timeline for some development projects to get approvals and for affordable housing in particular to line up many financing sources, and in single-family projects with phased sequencing of tracts of a subdivision, projects sometimes have to be redesigned once or multiple times to keep up with new codes. For developers, time is money and delays and redesigns contribute to increased overall project costs. A temporary moratorium would provide certainty to both affordable and market-rate developers facing longer project timelines that significant redesigns or modifications will not be necessary to comply with new requirements.

Numerous Additional Directives and Mandates in Recent Years: The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed multiple additional directives to research and propose new building standards in recent years. Some of the most impactful mandates have also come from outside stakeholders or the adopting agencies themselves (rather than the Legislature), like solar panel mandates and fire sprinkler requirements. There are a number of legitimate and important concerns that are addressed by these and many other elements of building standards for housing. However, the framework for proposing and adopting new standards leaves agencies in silos with regard to the volume or costs of new proposals that counterpart agencies are also simultaneously developing. Cost analyses are performed on each individual modification or for each respective chapter, not on the accumulation of the entirety of changes in each intervening or triennial cycle across all agencies. Holistic review is therefore difficult and while individual standards may increase costs by what appears a reasonable amount, from a different lens, the cost of the totality of all cumulative changes may be less reasonable. In addition, cost impacts to affordable housing developments are less visible in these analyses as these increased costs are indirectly borne by the state via higher per-unit development costs in the state's grant, tax credit, and loan financing programs rather than extrapolated as a direct impact to the state budget in the evaluation process.

Limited GHG Benefits from Continued Increases in New Housing Standards: The state has made significant strides over the last decade to increase stringency in energy efficiency for new residential construction. To that end, under the bill, the increased performance standards, electric-ready requirements and retrofit mandates contained in the most recent 2025 Energy Code update will still take effect and the proposed moratorium would become active after.

Stanford University's Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022) report on existing buildings points to the diminishing returns of continuing to increase energy efficiency requirements for new residential buildings. This is due to a number of factors, including the slow pace of residential construction, which has rarely exceeded 100,000 units per year since 2018 (according to HCD's Annual Progress Report Data Dashboard), in contrast with the roughly 14.6 million existing housing units in the state, many of which were constructed before the Energy Code existed, let alone the robust energy efficiency requirements elevated in more recent code cycles. Given the longevity of building use, most of these existing homes will still be in use for decades more. The volume of energy consumption from existing homes as compared to new homes is drastically higher. New homes consume a small fraction of the amount of the energy consumed in existing homes, such that a 5% energy savings achieved in existing homes would amount to the same as 10 years' worth of new net-zero residential construction.

Challenges with Mandating Retrofits and Alterations to Existing Housing: Despite the high emission reduction impact possible with a focus on existing homes, there are significant challenges with how to achieve these retrofits and upgrades – for example, availability of labor familiar with newer technologies, upfront costs that lower income residents may not be able to bear while waiting for rebates or incentives, high electricity rates, and more. In addition, while homeowners face one set of costs and incentives when making decisions about when and how to upgrade and retrofit their homes, property owners with tenants in rental units may face an entirely different set of costs/incentives and tenants may be negatively impacted.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy's Decarbonizing California Equitably: A Guide to Tenant Protections in Building Upgrades/Retrofits Throughout the State (2023) identifies a number of these challenges if energy efficiency retrofit policies for existing residential units are not carefully crafted with possible repercussions to tenants – especially low-income tenants – in mind. While tenants may benefit from energy savings on utility bills, property owners are likely to pass on costs of retrofit/upgrade work to tenants in the form of increased rents. Disruptions from construction work may negatively impact habitability in the tenant's home or may necessitate they relocate for days or weeks (possibly at their own expense), and tenants who lack robust eviction protections may face "renoviction" if a property owner seeks to remove a tenant entirely to perform the work in question. Given the long-term ripple effects of the displacement wrought by the fires (and risk of more displacement from future disasters) pushing thousands more people into the Los Angeles region's extremely tight housing market, imposing additional retrofit requirements – of any kind, not just with regard to energy codes – on the existing residential stock may inadvertently cause further displacement of tenants and increased rents.

According to the Author

"California has a multi-million unit housing deficit. This mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our longstanding housing crisis. Our home prices are double the national average, a majority of renters sacrifice basic needs like food and health care to pay for housing, and we have an astonishing level of homelessness, exceeding 180,000 unhoused Californians. The recent fires in Los Angeles have only exacerbated these housing issues.

California's building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000-$100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

AB 306 would pause additional changes to state building standards affecting residential construction for six years, excluding emergency changes necessary for protecting health and safety and home hardening. This bill would also prohibit local governments from making new modifications to residential building standards for six years, with limited exceptions.

This moratorium will bring more certainty to the home construction industry and help stem further construction cost increases, given the demand surge from the volume of homes and apartments that will need to be rebuilt in Los Angeles. Freezing the codes affecting residential construction will prevent further cost increases for new homes and apartments. Pausing further changes will also allow the current contractor workforce and local building officials to absorb the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to relearn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

Given it is likely to take affected individuals several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction, further increases and changes to building standards requirements will only make the rebuilding process more difficult and costly for residents."

Arguments in Support

According to the California Housing Consortium, "The affordable housing industry is under immense financial stress for various reasons, including the high cost of building housing in California. Excessive state and local regulatory requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing in our state, including building code requirements that go above and beyond what is needed to protect the health and safety of California residents. These requirements are often imposed without a holistic review that analyzes the aggregate impacts of various state and local regulatory requirements and how these add to the cost of producing affordable housing. By pausing additional changes to state and local building standards for residential construction, AB 306 would provide affordable housing developers with relief from unexpected increases in project costs associated with changes to building code requirements."

Arguments in Opposition

According to a coalition of environmental and energy groups, including the Climate Action Campaign, Natural Resources Defense Council, and US Green Building Council – Los Angeles, "While the bill allows exceptions for 'health and safety standards' and 'fire hardening' […] AB 306 omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates. This omission implies that the authors believe sustainability measures impose an unjustifiable cost on homeowners and developers. Is this the authors' intention? Some of our issues of concern include protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, elimination of NOx-emitting appliances, and achievement of greenhouse gas reduction goals—all of which are being addressed by forward-thinking building codes in development around California. We hope that halting this progress towards a cleaner, healthier future is not the author's intent."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations:

CBSC and HCD will each incur costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to evaluate each statewide rulemaking proposal and each local modification proposal that affects residential units to determine if the proposal meets the bill's exemption criteria.

1. CBSC estimates annual costs of approximately $262,000 for six years (Service Revolving Fund) for one permanent staff position to perform the additional analyses necessary to determine if a local or statewide proposal meets the exemption criteria of fire and life safety or home hardening. CBSC indicates it lacks existing staff with the needed background to evaluate these issues because these reviews typically fall under the authority of the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Further, CBSC indicates staff will need to review local modification and change proposals in more detail to compare each ordinance to those already codified from the previous year, and to ensure they are substantially similar or equivalent, not more restrictive than previous years. CBSC notes the bill requires CBSC to make its own determination on whether the ordinance is substantially similar or equivalent, unlike CBSC's existing process, which relies on findings made by the local agency. CBSC anticipates these additional responsibilities will at least double the staff time needed to review these proposals, but anticipates these costs will be minor and absorbable.

1. HCD estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $226,000 annually, beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, for one staff position to handle increased inquiries from CBSC to ascertain whether local code changes fall under an exemption and to advise CBSC on local amendments. HCD notes CBSC has no direct authority for residential building standards and will most likely require HCD's assistance reviewing local code amendments. Additionally, HCD anticipates the need to provide technical assistance to local government agencies, builders, design professionals, and the public and will likely need to create and publish clarifying information. 

HCD further indicates it may require additional positions once the moratorium is lifted in 2031, when it expects to face a significant surge in workload to update and implement multiple building standard changes delayed during the six-year pause.

1. The California Energy Commission (CEC) anticipates no costs from this bill.
2. The cost, if any, to the SFM is unknown at this time.

VOTES

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 12-0-0

YES: Haney, Patterson, Ávila Farías, Caloza, Gallagher, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Ta, Wicks, Wilson, Gabriel

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Calderon, Caloza, Elhawary, Fong, Mark González, Hadwick, Hart, Pacheco, Pellerin, Solache, Ta

ABS, ABST OR NV: Dixon

UPDATED

VERSION: March 12, 2025

CONSULTANT: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085 FN: 0000170

Date of Hearing: March 19, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 306

Author:(Schultz and Rivas) – As Amended Ver:March 12, 2025

Urgency: Yes State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill imposes a six-year moratorium, from June 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, on the adoption or modification of state and local building standards affecting residential units, with limited exceptions.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), within the Department of General Services (DGS), and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless any of the following conditions are met:
   1. The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.
   2. The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM).
   3. The building standards are proposed for adoption in relation to standards researched pursuant to AB 835 (Lee), Chapter 345, Statutes of 2023, relative to single-exit, single-stairway apartment houses.
   4. The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to AB 529 (Gabriel), Chapter 743, Statutes of 2023, regarding adaptive reuse residential projects.
   5. The building standards are proposed for adoption pursuant to SB 745 (Cortese), Chapter 884, Statutes of 2023, regarding water efficiency in new buildings.
2. Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, unless any of the following conditions are met:
   1. The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025.
   2. The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety.
   3. The changes or modifications relate to home hardening.
   4. The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
3. Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in item 2, above, is met.

FISCAL EFFECT:

CBSC and HCD will each incur costs, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to evaluate each statewide rulemaking proposal and each local modification proposal that affects residential units to determine if the proposal meets the bill’s exemption criteria.

1. CBSC estimates annual costs of approximately $262,000 for six years (Service Revolving Fund) for one permanent staff position to perform the additional analyses necessary to determine if a local or statewide proposal meets the exemption criteria of fire and life safety or home hardening. CBSC indicates it lacks existing staff with the needed background to evaluate these issues because these reviews typically fall under the authority of the Office of the State Fire Marshal.

Further, CBSC indicates staff will need to review local modification and change proposals in more detail to compare each ordinance to those already codified from the previous year, and to ensure they are substantially similar or equivalent, not more restrictive than previous years. CBSC notes the bill requires CBSC to make its own determination on whether the ordinance is substantially similar or equivalent, unlike CBSC’s existing process, which relies on findings made by the local agency. CBSC anticipates these additional responsibilities will at least double the staff time needed to review these proposals, but anticipates these costs will be minor and absorbable.

1. HCD estimates ongoing General Fund costs of $226,000 annually, beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, for one staff position to handle increased inquiries from CBSC to ascertain whether local code changes fall under an exemption and to advise CBSC on local amendments. HCD notes CBSC has no direct authority for residential building standards and will most likely require HCD's assistance reviewing local code amendments. Additionally, HCD anticipates the need to provide technical assistance to local government agencies, builders, design professionals, and the public and will likely need to create and publish clarifying information. 

HCD further indicates it may require additional positions once the moratorium is lifted in 2031, when it expects to face a significant surge in workload to update and implement multiple building standard changes delayed during the six-year pause.

1. The California Energy Commission (CEC) anticipates no costs from this bill.
2. The cost, if any, to the SFM is unknown at this time.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. The author seeks to help address California’s housing crisis by placing a moratorium on new building standards or local modifications affecting residential construction. According to the author:

California’s building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000-$100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

This moratorium will bring more certainty to the home construction industry and help stem further construction cost increases, given the demand surge from the volume of homes and apartments that will need to be rebuilt in Los Angeles.

1. Background.

Building Standards. Existing law authorizes the CBSC to approve and adopt building standards through a triennial rulemaking process to revise and update the California Building Standards Code. There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to CBSC. HCD is responsible for proposing building standards to CBSC for residential buildings, hotels, and motels. Building standards take effect 180 days after they are published, unless a different date is specified.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years and through the intervening code adoption cycle, which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes. The most recent update to the Building Standards Code, the 2025 Triennial Edition, takes effect on January 1, 2026. Existing law also requires CBSC to publish the California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) once every three years. The most recent edition, the 2025 CALGreen Code, also takes effect on January 1, 2026. Because CBSC has already adopted these codes, they will go into effect as planned, on January 1, 2026, even if this bill becomes law.

Local agencies are authorized to adopt stricter building codes than the state based on climactic, geologic, or topographic conditions. Existing law requires CBSC to review each such ordinance, to ensure the local agency has clearly marked what is being amended and how, the local agency cites its statutory authority, and the required findings and certifications are included. During the 2022 code adoption cycle, CBSC received 515 ordinances from local agencies throughout the state and spent 1,875 staff hours reviewing them. This bill requires CBSC to reject local modifications and changes to the code unless exemption criteria are met.

Los Angeles Wildfires and the Governor’s Executive Order (EO). On January 7, 2025, two wildfires, the Palisades Fire and Eaton Fire, ignited in Los Angeles County. Together, these fires destroyed over 16,000 structures, including over 13,000 housing units. In response to these wildfires, Governor Newsom issued EO N-4-25 on January 12, 2025, instructing HCD, within 60 days and in consultation with DGS, the SMF and the CEC to review and provide recommendations to the Governor regarding any provision of the Building Standards Code that should be suspended in order to facilitate rapid, safe, and cost-effective rebuilding and recovery. It is unknown at this point whether the Governor will suspend any specific provisions of building codes for wildfire-related rebuilding projects.

1. Support and Opposition. This bill is supported by a variety builders and housing advocates who assert state and local building code requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing and believe pausing the building code update cycle will be beneficial to the state’s affordable housing crisis.

This bill is opposed by numerous environmental and energy groups who are concerned the bill omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates, including protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, among others.

1. Related Legislation. AB 6 (Ward), of this legislative session, requires HCD to convene a working group regarding allowing residential developments between three and 10 units to be designed and built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code, and requires HCD to research construction cost pressures for residential construction due to building standards and provide a report to the Legislature. AB 6 is pending in the Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: March 12, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Matt Haney, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 306 (

Author:Schultz) – As Amended Ver:March 5, 2025

SUBJECT: Building regulations: state building standards

SUMMARY: Imposes a moratorium on the adoption or modification of new state and local building standards affecting residential units from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, with limited exceptions. Specifically, this bill:

1. Prohibits the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) and any other adopting agency, from June 1, 2025, until June 1, 2031, from considering, approving, or adopting any proposed building standards affecting residential units unless either of the following conditions is met:
   1. The CBSC deems those changes necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety; or
   2. The building standards are related to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by the Office of the State Fire Marshal (SFM).
2. Prohibits a city or county from making changes or modifications to building standards affecting residential units, including to green building standards, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the following conditions is met:
   1. The changes or modifications are substantially equivalent to changes or modifications that were previously filed by the governing body of the city or county and were in effect as of January 1, 2025;
   2. The CBSC deems those changes or modifications necessary as emergency standards to protect health and safety;
   3. The changes or modifications relate to home hardening; or
   4. The building standards relate to home hardening and are proposed for adoption by a fire protection district pursuant to existing provisions governing the proposal of new standards by fire protection districts.
3. Requires CBSC to reject a modification or change to any building standard affecting a residential unit filed by the governing body of a city or county, from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031, unless one of the conditions in 2) above is met.
4. Includes an urgency clause.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Establishes the CBSC within the Government Operations Agency and requires CBSC to receive proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in an 18-month code adoption cycle, with procedures that ensure adequate public participation, notice and justification, technical review, and opportunities for advisory input before adoption by CBSC. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 18920 and 18921.1)
2. Requires any building standard adopted or proposed by state agencies to be submitted to, and approved or adopted by, the CBSC prior to codification. Requires building standards submitted for approval to include an analysis written by the agency proposing the standards which justifies the approval using the following criteria:
   1. The proposed building standard does not conflict with, overlap, or duplicate other building standards;
   2. The proposed standard is within the parameters established by enabling legislation and is not expressly within the exclusive jurisdiction of another agency;
   3. The public interest requires the adoption of the building standard, which includes, but is not limited to, health and safety, resource efficiency, fire safety, seismic safety, building and building system performance, and consistency with environmental, public health, and accessibility statutes and regulations;
   4. The proposed standard is not unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious;
   5. The cost to the public is reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived;
   6. The proposed standard is not unnecessarily ambiguous or vague;
   7. The applicable national specifications, published standards, and model codes have been incorporated where appropriate;
   8. The format of the proposed standard is consistent with that adopted by the CBSC; and
   9. The proposed standard, if it promotes fire and panic safety, as determined by the SFM, has the written approval of the SFM. (HSC 18930(a))
3. Requires every agency subject to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to prepare and submit an initial statement of reasons for proposing the adoption, amendment, or repeal of a regulation, which must include certain information, including for building standards, the estimated cost of compliance, the estimated potential benefits, and the related assumptions used to determine the estimates. (Government Code Section 11346.2(b)(5)(B)(i))
4. Allows any city or county to make changes or modifications to building standards that regulate structures used for human habitation and published in the California Building Standards Code (state building code) upon express findings, as specified. If any city or county does not amend, add, or repeal ordinances or regulations to impose those requirements or make changes or modifications in those requirements upon express findings, the provisions published in the state building code and other regulations apply to the city or county and take effect 180 days after publication by the CBSC. (HSC 17958)
5. Allows a city or county, in adopting ordinances or regulations under 4) above, to make changes or modifications in the requirements of the state building code and other regulations, including green building standards, as it determines are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions. (HSC 17958.5)
6. Requires the governing body of a city or county, before making any modifications or changes under 5) above, to make an express finding that such modifications or changes are reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological or topographical conditions, and requires those findings as well as the modification or change expressly marked and identified to be filed with the CBSC. Prohibits a modification or change from becoming effective or operative until the finding and modification or change have been filed with CBSC. (HSC 17958.7(a))
7. Allows CBSC to reject a modification or change filed by the governing body of a city or county if no finding was submitted under 6) above. (HSC 17958.7(b))
8. Requires CBSC to act upon emergency standards within 30 days and only when the adopting agency or state agency that proposes the building standards has made the finding of emergency required under the APA, as specified, and the adopting agencies have adopted the emergency standard in compliance with the APA, and the CBSC concurs with that finding of emergency. Requires the concurrence and the approval of the emergency building standards to be made with an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the CBSC attending a meeting, or not less than six affirmative votes, whichever is greater. (HSC 18937)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “California has a multi-million unit housing deficit. This mismatch of supply and demand has resulted in our longstanding housing crisis. Our home prices are double the national average, a majority of renters sacrifice basic needs like food and health care to pay for housing, and we have an astonishing level of homelessness, exceeding 180,000 unhoused Californians. The recent fires in Los Angeles have only exacerbated these housing issues.

California’s building codes are some of the most energy-efficient and protective of health and life safety in the nation, but the cumulative impact of ever more aggressive building code updates has measurably increased the cost of new housing construction. Industry stakeholders estimate the upfront cost increases of the code changes made over the last 15 years to be in the $50,000-$100,000 range per single-family unit, not including further cost pressures from local modifications.

AB 306 would pause additional changes to state building standards affecting residential construction for six years, excluding emergency changes necessary for protecting health and safety and home hardening. This bill would also prohibit local governments from making new modifications to residential building standards for six years, with limited exceptions.

This moratorium will bring more certainty to the home construction industry and help stem further construction cost increases, given the demand surge from the volume of homes and apartments that will need to be rebuilt in Los Angeles. Freezing the codes affecting residential construction will prevent further cost increases for new homes and apartments. Pausing further changes will also allow the current contractor workforce and local building officials to absorb the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to relearn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

Given it is likely to take affected individuals several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction, further increases and changes to building standards requirements will only make the rebuilding process more difficult and costly for residents.”

Background on Building Standards: The California Building Standards Law establishes the process for adopting state building standards by the CBSC. Statewide building standards are intended to provide uniformity in building across the state. The Commission’s duties include the following: receiving proposed building standards from state agencies for consideration in each triennial and intervening building code adoption cycle; reviewing and approving building standards submitted by state agencies; adopting building standards for state buildings where no other state agency is authorized by law; and publishing the approved building standards in the California Building Standards Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24).

Most building standards currently in use in California are developed and vetted at the national level every three years by technical organizations, academics, and trade associations that develop national consensus standards, which are then incorporated into the International Building Code (IBC), the national model code used by most US jurisdictions. At the state level, state agencies with authority over specified occupancies then review the IBC and amend as necessary for California’s specific needs. There are approximately 20 state agencies that develop building standards and propose them for adoption to the CBSC.

After the proposal of building standards by state agencies, the standards undergo a public vetting process. A code advisory committee composed of experts in a particular scope of code reviews the proposed standards, followed by public review. The proposing agency considers feedback and may then amend the standards and re-submit them to the CBSC for consideration. CBSC reviews and adopts the standards and files them with the Secretary of State for codification and publishing, and there is a 180-day period during which local agencies file modifications and changes to the state codes (though they are not limited to this window). The new codes then take effect January 1 of the subsequent year following publication.

Updates and changes to building standards are adopted on two timelines: through the triennial code adoption cycle which occurs every three years, and through the intervening code adoption cycle which provides an update to codes 18 months after the publication of the triennial codes. Regulatory activities for each cycle begin over two years before the effective date of the codes.

Local Amendments to State Codes: Local governments are provided wide latitude to make changes and modifications to the state baseline codes – so long as they exceed or are more protective than the state baseline, not a reduction – and for codes affecting residential buildings (excluding energy “reach codes” which follow a different process), neither the CBSC nor statute requires the local modifications to include any cost determinations or economic impact analysis. Local governments simply have to include a finding in their filing with the CBSC that the modifications are “reasonably necessary because of local climatic, geological, or topographical conditions” (HSC 17958.7) or environmental conditions for green building standards. CBSC does not currently have the authority to review these findings for validity, merits, or the justification of reasonableness, nor do the local amendments have to follow the APA or more rigorous state review criteria requiring state building standards to “not [be] unreasonable, arbitrary, unfair, or capricious, in whole or in part” (HSC 18930(a)(4)) or have a “cost to the public [that is] reasonable, based on the overall benefit to be derived from the building standards” (HSC 18930(a)(5)).

Los Angeles Wildfires and Rebuilding Challenges: The fires in Southern California that began on January 7^th displaced tens of thousands of Los Angeles County residents. Once the fires were extinguished, more than 13,000 homes and apartments had been destroyed. Disasters compound existing housing market challenges and the Los Angeles region had been in a severe housing affordability crisis well before the sudden destruction of 13,000 housing units. Constrained housing supply has led to increased housing cost burdens, especially among populations vulnerable to disaster. A myriad of recovery assistance programs, timelines, and restrictions have brought further instability to fire survivors’ efforts to locate new housing while deciding if and how they will rebuild their destroyed homes.

In response to the wildfires, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 on January 12, 2025 which included the following provisions related to building standards: “5. HCD, in consultation with DGS, the Office of the State Fire Marshal, and the California Energy Commission, shall, within 60 days, review and provide a report to me with recommendations regarding any provision of the Building Standards Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, that should be suspended for [rebuilding projects] in order to facilitate rapid, safe, and cost-effective rebuilding and recovery.” No information is available yet regarding whether the Governor will move to suspend any specific provisions of building codes for such projects.

Many of the homes that burned in the fires were built decades ago, even before the state had adopted certain building standards which are now extremely robust, like the Energy Code which was first adopted in the late 1970s. In addition, not all affected properties were insured, or had minimal insurance that likely lacked building code upgrade/replacement coverage. Thus, some owners will not be able to draw on insurance payouts to assist with rebuilding older homes and apartments that were destroyed up to current code, as is generally required when rebuilding. Those who did opt for building code upgrade coverage may only have had a minimal amount. Since these older homes and apartments were built, there have been many additions to state and local code requirements that owners will have to incorporate into their rebuilding plans in order to be issued building permits, including requirements to install fire sprinklers in all new dwellings, solar panels and battery storage in certain types of residential construction, larger electrical panel capacity and more 240V outlets for electric vehicles and appliances, and more.

It is likely to take fire victims who wish to rebuild several years to remediate sites, receive insurance payouts or FEMA financial assistance and line up financing, locate contractors and supplies, and pull permits to begin reconstruction. Given this lengthy rebuilding timeline and the frequency of code changes every 18 months, building codes will continue to be modified during the rebuilding period. While not all code modifications are significant, further changes to these requirements may present challenges to fire victims as building codes only “lock in” when a person receives a building permit from a local government.

Key Provisions of This Bill: This bill would impose a six-year moratorium on the proposal or adoption of new state building standards and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Two exceptions to the state moratorium are provided – first, if the standards are proposed via the existing emergency standards process outlined in HSC 18937 and the CBSC agrees with the proposing agency that the standards meet the criteria for emergency adoption. And second, if the standards are proposed by the SFM and relate to home hardening. The moratorium would only apply to standards affecting residential units, meaning standards for nonresidential buildings would remain unaffected.

This bill would also impose a six-year moratorium on the adoption of new local amendments and modifications to building standards affecting residential units (new and existing) from June 1, 2025 until June 1, 2031. Local agencies would be permitted to re-file amendments or modifications that are substantially equivalent to those that they already had in effect as of January 1, 2025 – in effect a “hold harmless” to allow the reauthorization of any local standards that are already in place – but new amendments impacting residential units would not be permitted unless they meet limited exceptions. Those exceptions are similar to the state exceptions, including for emergency reasons, for home hardening, or those proposed by a fire protection district that relate to home hardening under specified law allowing for fire protection districts to make such changes.

Individuals may still choose to exceed the state baseline codes, as they always have the option to do. In addition, code proposals impacting new and existing non-residential buildings would still be permitted to continue as expected. All the items contained in the most recent triennial code that will take effect January 1, 2026 will continue to go into effect as planned, as those codes have already been adopted by the CBSC at their recent meetings on February 26-28, 2025 and December 17-19, 2024. Code agencies will still have the option to bring new proposals to the CBSC to address pressing health and safety issues through the emergency standards process if there is sufficient justification for the urgency of those standards. And agencies and stakeholders may continue to work on other non-emergency proposals and could have them ready to propose immediately upon expiration of the moratorium.

Frequency of Code Changes: As previously mentioned, building codes are updated every 18 to 36 months. This frequency of changes means that when code agencies are publishing final versions of triennial codes, they are already beginning to coordinate the review and analysis of new proposed changes for the next intervening code cycle before the ink is barely dry on those “new” codes. For example, although CBSC just adopted many chapters of new codes for the current triennial cycle in December and February, which will not take effect until January 1, 2026, they are simultaneously already preparing the next intervening code cycle with workshops for March 20, 2025: “During the pre-cycle period of an Intervening Code Adoption Cycle, proposing state agencies hold public workshops to discuss possible supplemental amendments to the 2025 Code. Workshops provide an open forum for the public and industry stakeholders to participate in vetting potential modifications to California's building codes. Approved code changes will result in supplements (blue pages) to the 2025 edition of Title 24, and will become effective July 1, 2027.”

This rush to begin formulating amendments to codes that have not yet actually taken effect raises a number of concerns. Triennial and intervening code cycles effectively “back up” into each other, given the intensive calendar of code advisory committee reviews, public comment periods, and staff resources that must be allocated to develop and vet new changes and comply with regulatory timelines. The speediness of new changes also raises questions regarding the cost of compliance analyses that are intended to be performed for new standards, given there may not have been sufficient time for development projects to have actually completed construction under the new standards (many projects take longer than 18 months to complete) and have quality data that agency staff can utilize when performing these cost analyses. Some agencies, like the Energy Commission, must perform more granular cost-effectiveness analyses of new standards, although these are amortized over an anticipated 30-year timeframe and involve complex energy and construction cost modeling.

Furthermore, once codes are in effect, a large array of individuals have to be trained up to the new requirements – including local building officials who are charged with implementing and enforcing the codes, planners and architects who design projects, contractors and subcontractors who are managing projects, various tradespeople responsible for the specific construction work, and building inspectors who have to sign off on the work being completed up to the relevant codes in effect at the time building permits were pulled. Temporarily pausing further changes will allow the current workforce and local building officials to learn the newest code requirements and have certainty that they will remain in place for six years such that they will not have to take time to re-learn and reconfigure certain practices every 18-to-36 months.

In addition, given the lengthy timeline for some development projects to get approvals and for affordable housing in particular to line up many financing sources, and in single-family projects with phased sequencing of tracts of a subdivision, projects sometimes have to be redesigned once or multiple times to keep up with new codes. For developers, time is money and delays and redesigns contribute to increased overall project costs. A temporary moratorium would provide certainty to both affordable and market-rate developers facing longer project timelines that significant redesigns or modifications will not be necessary to comply with new requirements.

Numerous Additional Directives and Mandates in Recent Years: The Legislature has passed and the Governor has signed multiple additional directives to research and propose new building standards in recent years around proposals like rainwater catchment, electric vehicle charging, water efficiency and reuse, adaptive reuse projects, “single stair” apartments exceeding three stories, and beyond. Some of the most impactful mandates in recent years have also come from outside stakeholders or the adopting agencies themselves (rather than the Legislature), like solar panel mandates and fire sprinkler requirements. There are a number of legitimate and important concerns that are addressed by these and many other elements of building standards for housing. However, the framework for proposing and adopting new standards leaves agencies in silos with regard to the volume or costs of new proposals that counterpart agencies are also simultaneously developing. Cost analyses are performed on each individual modification or for each respective chapter, not on the accumulation of the entirety of changes in each intervening or triennial cycle across all agencies. Holistic review is therefore difficult and while individual standards may increase costs by what appears a reasonable amount, from a different lens, the cost of the totality of all cumulative changes may be less reasonable. In addition, cost impacts to affordable housing developments are less visible in these analyses as these increased costs are indirectly borne by the state via higher per-unit development costs in the state’s grant, tax credit, and loan financing programs rather than extrapolated as a direct impact to the state budget in the evaluation process.

Limited GHG Benefits from Continued Increases in New Housing Standards: The state has made significant strides over the last decade to increase stringency in energy efficiency for new residential construction. To that end, under the bill, the increased performance standards, electric-ready requirements and retrofit mandates contained in the most recent 2025 Energy Code update will still take effect and the proposed moratorium would become active after. Stanford University’s Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022) report on existing buildings points to the diminishing returns of continuing to increase energy efficiency requirements for new residential buildings due to a number of factors, including:

• The slow pace of residential construction, which has rarely exceeded 100,000 completed units per year since 2018, according to HCD’s Annual Progress Report Data Dashboard.
• The number of existing housing units, which 2022 Census data identifies as roughly 14.6 million, many of which were constructed before the Energy Code existed, let alone the robust energy efficiency requirements elevated in more recent code cycles. Given the longevity of building use, most of these existing homes will still be in use for decades.
• The volume of energy consumption from existing homes as compared to new homes (see table). New homes consume a small fraction of the amount of the energy consumed in existing homes, such that a 5% energy savings achieved in existing homes would amount to the same as 10 years’ worth of new net-zero residential construction.

Pathways to Carbon Neutrality in California (2022), Stanford University

Challenges with Mandating Retrofits and Alterations to Existing Housing: Despite the high emission reduction impact possible with a focus on existing homes, there are significant challenges with how to achieve these retrofits and upgrades – for example, availability of labor familiar with newer technologies, upfront costs that lower income residents may not be able to bear while waiting for rebates or incentives, high electricity rates, and more. In addition, while homeowners face one set of costs and incentives when making decisions about when and how to upgrade and retrofit their homes, property owners with tenants in rental units may face an entirely different set of costs/incentives and tenants may be negatively impacted.

Strategic Actions for a Just Economy’s (SAJE’s) Decarbonizing California Equitably: A Guide to Tenant Protections in Building Upgrades/Retrofits Throughout the State (2023) identifies a number of these challenges if energy efficiency retrofit policies for existing residential units are not carefully crafted with possible repercussions to tenants – especially low-income tenants – in mind. While tenants may benefit from energy savings on utility bills, property owners are likely to pass on costs of retrofit/upgrade work to tenants in the form of increased rents. Disruptions from construction work may negatively impact habitability in the tenant’s home or may necessitate they relocate for days or weeks (possibly at their own expense), and tenants who lack robust eviction protections may face “renoviction” if a property owner seeks to remove a tenant entirely to perform the work in question.

Given the long-term ripple effects of the displacement wrought by the fires (and risk of more displacement from future disasters) pushing thousands more people into the Los Angeles region’s extremely tight housing market, imposing additional retrofit requirements – of any kind, not just with regard to energy codes – on the existing residential stock may inadvertently cause further displacement of tenants and increased rents.

Arguments in Support: According to the California Housing Consortium, “The affordable housing industry is under immense financial stress for various reasons, including the high cost of building housing in California. Excessive state and local regulatory requirements drive up the cost of building affordable housing in our state, including building code requirements that go above and beyond what is needed to protect the health and safety of California residents. These requirements are often imposed without a holistic review that analyzes the aggregate impacts of various state and local regulatory requirements and how these add to the cost of producing affordable housing. By pausing additional changes to state and local building standards for residential construction, AB 306 would provide affordable housing developers with relief from unexpected increases in project costs associated with changes to building code requirements.”

Arguments in Opposition: According to a coalition of environmental and energy groups, including the Climate Action Campaign, Natural Resources Defense Council, and US Green Building Council – Los Angeles, “While the bill allows exceptions for ‘health and safety standards’ and ‘fire hardening’ […] AB 306 omits consideration of green building standards as a basis for acceptable code updates. This omission implies that the authors believe sustainability measures impose an unjustifiable cost on homeowners and developers. Is this the authors’ intention? Some of our issues of concern include protecting new reach codes, EV charging requirements, energy efficiency upgrades, elimination of NOx-emitting appliances, and achievement of greenhouse gas reduction goals—all of which are being addressed by forward-thinking building codes in development around California. We hope that halting this progress towards a cleaner, healthier future is not the author’s intent.”

Related Legislation:

AB 6 (Ward) of the current legislative session would require HCD to convene a working group regarding allowing residential developments between 3 and 10 units to be designed and built under the requirements of the California Residential Code rather than the California Building Code, and would require HCD to research construction cost pressures for residential construction as a result of building standards and provide a report to the Legislature on its findings.

SB 597 (Glazer, Chapter 861, Statutes of 2024): Required HCD to research and develop recommendations regarding building standards for installation of rainwater catchment systems for nonpotable uses in newly constructed residential dwellings, and requires a report to specified committees of the Legislature by January 1, 2027.

AB 529 (Gabriel, Chapter 743, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD to convene a working group regarding adaptive reuse residential projects, including identifying and recommending amendments to state building standards.

SB 745 (Cortese, Chapter 884, Statutes of 2023): Required HCD and CBSC to research, develop, and propose building standards to reduce potable water use in new residential and nonresidential buildings, and requires CBSC to perform a review of water efficiency and water reuse standards each triennial cycle and update these standards as needed.

AB 835 (Lee, Chapter 345, Statutes of 2023): Required the SFM to research standards for single-exit, single-stairway apartment houses in buildings above three stories and provide a report to specified legislative committees and to CBSC by January 1, 2026.

AB 1738 (Boerner, Chapter 687, Statutes of 2022): Required HCD and CBSC to research and develop mandatory building standards for the installation of EV chargers and not simply a requirement for “EV capable” spaces in existing multifamily and nonresidential buildings during retrofits, additions, and alterations, and mandates future updates to these standards at each triennial code adoption cycle until 2033.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

American Planning Association, California Chapter

California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Housing Consortium
California Housing Partnership Corporation
Valley Industry and Commerce Association

Support If Amended

California Association of Realtors

Opposition

350 Bay Area Action
350 Conejo / San Fernando Valley
350 Humboldt
350 Marin
350 Sacramento
350 Southland Legislative Alliance
Acterra: Action for A Healthy Planet
Active San Gabriel Valley
Ban Sup (single Use Plastic)
California building Officials

California Solar & Storage Association
California State Association of Electrical Workers
California State Pipe Trades Council
Carbon Free Palo Alto
Carbon Free Silicon Valley
Climate Action California
Climate Action Campaign
Climate Action Petaluma
Climate Reality Contra Costa County Policy Action Squad
Climate Reality Project San Diego
Climate Reality Project, California Coalition
Climate Reality Project, Los Angeles Chapter
Climate Reality Project, Orange County
Climate Reality Project, San Fernando Valley
Cool Petaluma
Design Avenues LLC
Elders Climate Action, NorCal and SoCal Chapters
Glendale Environmental Coalition
Greenbank Associates
Habitable Designs
Home Energy Analytics, INC.
Leading Change Consulting and Coaching
Marin Conservation League
Marin/Sonoma Building Electrification Squad
Mothers Out Front California
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
Natural Resources Defense Council
Negawatt Consulting
Peninsula Interfaith Climate Action
Project Green Home
Public Citizen
Resilient Palisades
San Diego Building Electrification Coalition
San Francisco Baykeeper
Sandiego350
Santa Cruz Climate Action Network
SoCal 350 Climate Action
Sonoma County Climate Activist Network
Sustainable San Mateo County
Third ACT SoCal
Transformative Wealth Management LLC
Trinity Respecting Earth and Environment (TREE)
U.S. Green Building Council - Los Angeles
Vector Green Power, LLC
Western States Council Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation

Oppose Unless Amended

Menlo Spark
San Francisco Bay Physicians for Social Responsibility
Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action

Analysis Prepared by: Nicole Restmeyer / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085