AB 306 Provisions Signed by Governor Newsom via State Budget Process - California Building Officials
Local California Jurisdictions Have Certainty on Local Amendments to Residential Codes
www.calbo.org
-
Welcome to The Building Code Forum
Your premier resource for building code knowledge.
This forum remains free to the public thanks to the generous support of our Sawhorse Members and Corporate Sponsors. Their contributions help keep this community thriving and accessible.
Want enhanced access to expert discussions and exclusive features? Learn more about the benefits here.
Ready to upgrade? Log in and upgrade now.
Wow...
- Thread starter Joe.B
- Start date
www.calbo.org
Theoretically, the building industry. No new local amendments, and no changes accepted from model codes relating to residential construction till 2031.
https://calmatters.org/housing/2025/05/building-code-california-housing/
New homes under construction in Pleasanton on June 16, 2024. The city of Pleasanton has voted to explore the possibility of becoming a charter city.
Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters
As lawmakers scramble to turbocharge post-fire recovery efforts in Los Angeles and to tackle a housing shortage across the state, a new addition may be coming to California’s building...
Is the secret to housing affordability in California buried in the building code?
by Ben Christopher May 15, 2025New homes under construction in Pleasanton on June 16, 2024. The city of Pleasanton has voted to explore the possibility of becoming a charter city.
Photo by Loren Elliott for CalMatters
As lawmakers scramble to turbocharge post-fire recovery efforts in Los Angeles and to tackle a housing shortage across the state, a new addition may be coming to California’s building...
Yikes
SAWHORSE
Question, for cities like Los Angeles that have modified the triennial state code for decades, does that mean that their previous 2023 LABC modifications will get rolled into the 2026 LA Building Code? Or will the 2025 CBC 'undo' the previous 2023 LABC modifications?
arwat23
SAWHORSE
What does this solve? They aren't freezing code like they originally planned (yay). Are local amendment really that detrimental to the building industry and that costly? Honest question, because all local amendments in cities around me are for fire protection, which are exempt form this law. I can't even think of a non-fire mitigation related amendment that would increase costs in my area more than a few grand at worst, which probably wouldn't stop anyone when the average house here sells for over a mil and the average value of a home in the state is over $750,000. Zoning requirements have a bigger impact on costs than building code amendment.
I don't work in a huge city like LA or SF, so maybe I'm ignorant of how costly these amendment can be.
I don't work in a huge city like LA or SF, so maybe I'm ignorant of how costly these amendment can be.
Last edited:
That's a good question. I assume that existing modifications are allowed to stay, but if that modification specifies a code cycle, then it would have to be re-amended each cycle, then probably not.
I wonder about the 2025 code cycle that was published today, takes effect Jan 1st, 2026. Will they have to roll back a bunch of stuff? or are those going to proceed as planned?
I don't really think it solves anything. I think that some developers are getting frustrated that every 3 years the energy code gets stricter, seal it up, increase the R-value. Oops, too tight, add ERV/HRV's. Then add onto that the mandatory solar, all-electric-ready provisions. Icing on the cake, EV chargers everywhere. The 2022 added a bunch of new EV requirements in the mid-cycle amendments, it was kind of crazy. So, I think the industry just wants the target to stand still for a bit, I get it. Problem is when 2032 rolls around there's going to be a huge pill to swallow, a lot of changes all at once.
arwat23
SAWHORSE
I'm not going to read all 200+ pages of this thing, but here's something that might answer your question (there's similar text for Fire, Green Building, etc. throughout AB-130 / AB-306):
HSC 17958: (a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), and in Sections 17958.8 and 17958.9, any city or county may make changes in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code or the other regulations thereafter adopted pursuant to Section 17922 to amend, add, or repeal ordinances or regulations which impose the same requirements as are contained in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code or the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922 or make changes or modifications in those requirements upon express findings pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7. 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 California Building Standards Code or the other regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 17922 shall be applicable to it and shall become effective 180 days after publication by the California Building Standards Commission. Amendments, additions, and deletions to the California Building Standards Code adopted by a city or county pursuant to Section 17958.7, together with all applicable portions of the California Building Standards Code, shall become effective 180 days after publication of the California Building Standards Code by the California Building Standards Commission.
(b) Commencing October 1, 2025, to June 1, 2031, inclusive, a city or county shall not make changes that are applicable to residential units in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code or the other regulations thereafter adopted pursuant to Section 17922 to amend, add, or repeal ordinances or regulations which impose the same requirements as are contained in the provisions adopted pursuant to Section 17922 and published in the California Building Standards Code or the other regulations adopted pursuant to Section 17922 or make changes or modifications in those requirements upon express findings pursuant to Sections 17958.5 and 17958.7, 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 September 30, 2025.
(2) The commission 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 Section 13869.7.
(5) The changes or modifications are necessary to implement a local code amendment that is adopted to align with a general plan approved on or before June 10, 2025, and that permits mixed-fuel residential construction consistent with federal law while also incentivizing all-electric construction as part of an adopted greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy.
(6) The changes or modifications are related to administrative practices, are proposed for adoption during the intervening period pursuant to Section 18942, and exclusively result in any of the following:
(A) Reductions in time for a local agency to issue a postentitlement permit.
(B) Alterations to a local agency’s postentitlement fee schedule.
(C) Modernization of, or adoption of, new permitting platforms and software utilized by the local agency.
(D) Reductions in cost of internal operation for a local agency.
(E) Establishment, alteration, or removal of local programs related to enforcement of building code violations or complaints alleging building code violations.
steveray
SAWHORSE
Are local amendments really necessary?...Becomes the real question....
jar546
CBO
I believe local amendments are an absolute must. Look at the difference in climate between the bottom of California and the upper northern end. Cities have different issues from rural areas, and many established comprehensive plans must be adhered to based on the community's needs. Winds, fire, and drought all play a role. Even here in Florida. I can drive 1 hour west into the middle of Florida and find completely different infrastructure and exposure.
steveray
SAWHORSE
But most of that is covered in specific wind/ snow/ rain/ flood maps that do not need to be an amendment....I need specifics....
tmurray
SAWHORSE
I would agree on the administrative components of the code, but would disagree on the technical code provision side.
Canada is more variable than this and we are in the process of re-integrating our provincial codes into a national code, but our code is technical only. Administration is handled exclusively by the provinces and territories.
Most local building departments will not even come close to having the necessary resources to undertake a well researched and executed technical code modification.
jar546
CBO
Mandatory comprehensive plans, development requirements, limitations, fire districts vs no fire districts, zero-setback areas, but here is the biggest of them all: The local political environment and their belief systems. There are a lot of geographic-specific things that the building codes can't take into consideration; otherwise, CT should have the same code books with no amendments either.
mtlogcabin
SAWHORSE
When I was the BO in Hendry county Fl directly west of where Jar is the wind loads divided the county so we amended the wind zone to the highest for the entire county. This was done mostly to regulate the manufactured homes new & used being brought into the county. It really proved beneficial after Hurricane Andrew when FEMA started to dump all the housing units they brought into south Florida. Most where junk and did not meet our county wind zones.
tmurray
SAWHORSE
There is a way to do that without opening the doors to amending all of the code though. This is how our code does it:
1.1.3.1. Climatic and Seismic Values
1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (4), the climatic and seismic values
required for the design of buildings under this Code shall be in conformance with the
values established by the authority having jurisdiction.
2) Where they have not been established by the authority having jurisdiction, the
climatic values required for the design of buildings shall be in conformance with
Sentence (3) and the values listed in Appendix C. (See Note A-1.1.3.1.(2).)
This allows the local AHJ to supersede the values established in the code. In this manner, establishing climactic and seismic values are part of the normal authorities of the AHJ (most do defer to the code though), no amendment necessary.
1.1.3.1. Climatic and Seismic Values
1) Except as provided in Sentences (2) and (4), the climatic and seismic values
required for the design of buildings under this Code shall be in conformance with the
values established by the authority having jurisdiction.
2) Where they have not been established by the authority having jurisdiction, the
climatic values required for the design of buildings shall be in conformance with
Sentence (3) and the values listed in Appendix C. (See Note A-1.1.3.1.(2).)
This allows the local AHJ to supersede the values established in the code. In this manner, establishing climactic and seismic values are part of the normal authorities of the AHJ (most do defer to the code though), no amendment necessary.
steveray
SAWHORSE
We do have a Statewide building code....Even though we are not much of a State.....Zero setbacks are also in the code (FSD/ fire walls/ partywalls etc..) although we typically don't worry much about it because zoning generally does not allow it...A lot of the rest of it sounds like planning and zoning stuff and not really concern of the building code....At least not my building code. Which makes sense that zoning is also under attack legislatively under the banner of affordable housing...
I agree with this, there's a lot of increased cost that goes with zoning requirements, like size of lot, building and size of house requirements.
steveray
SAWHORSE
jar546
CBO
Not here. Two of my municipalities are on barrier islands in the same county as inland areas that have wind speeds that have a 30mph difference. They also don't have significant salt air issues from hot, humid air. They have the hot humid part but not the salt vapor we do. Major issue here with electrical boxes, condensing units and even electrical conduit and fastenters on the outside. If you are on or near the ocean, and you don't have good quality stainless steel fasteners, they will rust and rot out quickly.
jar546
CBO
This electrical box was installed about one year ago and it is 823 feet from the beach and behind three different buildings so it’s protected for the most part from direct winds.
steveray
SAWHORSE
I get it, but that can be a "global" requirement and only an actual concern in isolated spots. For instance we ask how they are handling snow and ice on commercial decks for the salt corrosion concern for hangers and fasteners...I might have to go installation instructions for that...IRC is easier than IBC for a code section...And I assume NEMA or something covers the electrical in a corrosive environment...? Whether that would be 110.3 or something else.....I am not electrically continuous...
steveray
SAWHORSE
314 ish? or 300.6?
arwat23
SAWHORSE
They probably are for some areas, but where I work (Bay Area - not in a major city), the biggest concern I'm aware of is fire (which is exempt) and earthquakes (which we have no amendments for). SF probably needs some amendment due to it's unique geography and history, sure, but outside of those types of cities (so SF, LA, and the areas immediately surrounding them), I don't know how necessary they are.
I think the far bigger issue is zoning and the power some communities have over projects. I work in a county where the cost of a house is absurd. Like, sell your child and harvest your parent's kidneys absurd. There's a LOT of NIMBY people here. One town has been completely ignoring the Governor's orders for years now, effectively blocking all multi-family developments. Hell, even single-family developments struggle in that town. I'm currently working on a project where we're replacing an exterior door with some NanaWall-type folding door system, and it's being held up because some neighbor doesn't want that alteration to happen (heaven forbid they see and hear construction for a month - not a joke, that's basically their reason).
I'm not usually one to advocate for removing red tape. I think it usually serves a practical purpose and is a result of lessons learned in the past. But some cities take it to an extreme where even I, the red tape, rule-obsessed weirdo, thinks it's a bit much.
Last edited: