As California lawmakers search for solutions to a statewide housing crisis and post-wildfire rebuilding in areas like Los Angeles, a new legislative proposal could bring sweeping changes to how housing is regulated: a halt to building code updates.

Assembly Bill 306, introduced by Assemblymember Nick Schultz, proposes freezing California’s building standards until at least 2031. The measure would prevent not only state-level updates to construction rules — which cover everything from fire safety and electrical wiring to green energy and seismic resilience — but also limit local governments from enacting their own additions.

“This is about affordability,” Schultz said. He emphasized that “there’s nothing extreme about leaving the code as it is for a few years,” especially as communities like Altadena and the Palisades focus on rebuilding.

Although the bill doesn’t repeal any current rules and includes exceptions for urgent safety-related updates, it would effectively place California’s code on hold for the rest of the decade. It has drawn widespread attention — and criticism — from environmental groups, renewable energy advocates, code enforcement officials, construction unions and others who argue that keeping standards agile is critical amid a changing climate.

“We’ll get to a place in the trend where things get worse really fast,” said Laura Walsh, policy manager with Save the Bay, expressing concern about the potential consequences of stalling updates to safety and energy regulations.

Despite opposition, the bill passed the Assembly with overwhelming support in April — 71 lawmakers voted in favor, with none opposed. The support of Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a co-author, likely helped push the bill through with little resistance. Now it’s up to the state Senate.

The move represents a shift in California’s housing policy debate. For years, the focus has been on zoning laws. Now, lawmakers are turning their attention to the dense and technical world of building codes.

“There’s just this idea that if you simplify things in some ways, it will help. … The driver of cost in California for housing is not code,” said Merrian Borgeson, policy director with the Natural Resources Defense Council. She described the bill as “well-intentioned” but fundamentally flawed.

Stephen Smith, founder of the Center for Building in North America, views the move differently. He says as legislators grow more comfortable adjusting zoning rules, “other issues are sort of bubbling up.” Architects and builders, he added, are now pointing out that “many of those [barriers] do go back to the building code.”

Most states, including California, base their building codes on model standards developed by the International Code Council — a D.C.-based nonprofit that includes industry groups, engineers, and regulators. These codes are updated every three years, and California then adapts them through a detailed process involving seven state agencies.

“It’s like naming the World Series the World Series,” quipped Eduardo Mendoza, a research associate with California YIMBY, highlighting the U.S.-centric nature of the so-called “international” code.

While the process might seem bureaucratic, it’s also deeply political. “It’s all very bureaucratic, very dry, but still extremely political,” Mendoza said.

Dan Dunmoyer, president of the California Building Industry Association, said keeping up with code changes can feel endless. “We had the most seismically safe, water-reduced, fire retardant, energy efficient homes in the world two years ago and we just keep on adding more and more and more to it,” he said. “At what point do you just take a pause?”

That pause could be especially beneficial for nonprofit affordable housing developers like Jamboree Housing Corporation. President Laura Archuleta noted that frequent code changes can cause costly delays. A single update might require revised architectural plans, setting projects back by “another year or two,” she said.

California isn’t alone in considering this kind of approach. In 2023, North Carolina enacted a similar freeze, preventing most updates through 2031 — though their code was already more outdated, with some energy rules unchanged since 2009.

If Schultz’s bill passes, California’s upcoming 2025 building code, set to take effect in January 2026, would be halted, locking in current rules as of June 1.

Assemblymember Chris Ward, a San Diego Democrat, supported the bill and argued that cost needs to be part of the state’s regulatory decisions. “Health and safety and other criteria [are] in mind but they don’t have cost as a factor in their decision making — well, they should,” he said.

Ward is also authoring two related bills: one would reevaluate energy efficiency standards for smaller apartment buildings, and another could allow more relaxed requirements for such structures.

“The theme of the year has been ‘let’s all focus in on the cost of construction and on reducing the cost of housing,’” Ward said.

Still, critics argue the bill is too blunt a tool for a nuanced problem. Borgeson emphasized, “The driver of cost in California for housing is not code.”

The construction industry begs to differ. The California Building Industry Association estimates that code changes since 2011 have added between $51,000 and $117,000 to the cost of building a single-family home — with sprinkler system requirements alone potentially costing up to $65,000 per unit.

While these figures are difficult to verify independently, developers seem to act on the belief that code changes are costly. “There’s a mad rush from developers who are trying to get in” just before code updates take effect, said Reuben Duarte of the California Chapter of the American Planning Association.

Not all code changes add costs. Some could reduce them. Matt Vespa, an attorney with Earthjustice, noted that energy efficiency upgrades may cost more upfront but lower long-term utility bills. “The cost of housing is just one part of affordability,” he said.

He questioned the logic of freezing future changes that might provide savings. “Those energy code enhancements could save people money on their energy bills and that is part of affordability. Why is that completely not considered in this equation?”

Recent legislative reforms, like allowing buildings over three stories to be built with a single staircase — a design common abroad — are already estimated to cut mid-sized apartment construction costs by up to 13%. Schultz’s bill includes carve-outs for such changes, as well as conversions of office buildings to residential units.

But other cost-saving reforms could be blocked. Cities like Dallas have already adopted looser standards for mid-sized apartment buildings, potentially offering a template for California.

Smith acknowledged why some might want to lock in the current code, but added, “It’s a little upsetting to see everyone throwing the baby out with the bath water.” He believes multifamily developers, in particular, could benefit from more flexibility.

“If I were a single family developer, I’d be a lot more happy with the code as it is than if I were a multifamily developer and a lot more eager to fix it in place,” he said.

Schultz said discussions are ongoing to refine the bill, including a potential “escape hatch” for changes that could reduce housing costs.

“That is the goal,” he said.

Originally reported by Ben Christopher in Stocktonia.