Understanding California Assembly Bill 253: Intentions and Industry Questions

California's Assembly Bill 253 (AB 253) introduces a new mechanism designed to address permitting bottlenecks in housing development. The legislation applies to residential projects and remodels of ten units or less, granting applicants the right to hire qualified, third-party private professional providers to review building plans if a local government cannot complete a review within thirty business days.

While the bill's authors and some developers are optimistic about its potential, a recent panel discussion with building officials and industry professionals revealed several ambiguities and implementation questions that may require further legislative refinement.

The intent: addressing permitting delays

Assemblymember Chris Ward, who championed the bill, stated that AB 253 aims to address the "painfully long delays" applicants experience during the post-entitlement permit process. He described the legislation as an alternative pathway and a "relief valve" for developers and homeowners waiting on overburdened city building departments.

From the applicant's perspective, design and development expert David Pearson noted that the law is the first avenue he has seen "to put time control back in our hands," potentially alleviating the delays that occur when developers are at the mercy of local jurisdictions. To address safety concerns, legislative aide Silverio Rizo Llamas noted that liability falls entirely on the private reviewer for any damages resulting from a poor plan check, which acts as a deterrent against substandard work.

Ambiguities and unanswered questions

Despite the stated benefits, the panel's Q&A session highlighted incisive questions from building officials regarding how the law will function in practice.

Code applicability mismatches

Greg Mahoney, a chief building official, pointed out a technical contradiction: buildings over three units cannot utilize the California Residential Code. He questioned why the bill specifically requires third-party reviewers to be certified as residential plans examiners by the ICC when projects up to ten units may not be governed by residential code. Assemblymember Ward acknowledged this mismatch, noting that he had an unsuccessful bill this year that attempted to move small-scale projects under ten units into the residential code, and plans to continue that legislative effort next year.

Accessibility compliance (CASp)

Mahoney also raised concerns about accessibility compliance, noting that state law requires jurisdictions to have a Certified Access Specialist (CASp) on staff for projects exceeding three units. When asked how AB 253 addresses this for private reviewers, the panel's response was somewhat generalized, with Ward suggesting that the private professional would simply need to be up to speed on all applicable codes.

Scope of permits and out-of-state reviewers

Attendees asked if the law applies to related approvals like fire, environmental management, grading, and landscape permits. While Ward confirmed that it does apply to these post-entitlement permits, Llamas admitted that "there might need to be some cleanup legislation or clarifying legislation to really hone in on what exactly is covered." Llamas also noted they are still looking into whether out-of-state reviewers will require California licensure.

Resubmittal timelines

Alice Chen asked what the timeline is for resubmittals if a city issues comments within the initial thirty-day clock. Ward replied, "that's a great question we'd have to study that a little bit more," while Llamas confirmed they would need to look into it, indicating no current statutory timeline for that specific scenario.

Conflicts of interest

Questions arose regarding consulting firms that already contract with cities. Attendees wondered if it would be a conflict of interest for a firm to review a developer's plans privately under AB 253 while also working on behalf of the city. Pearson stated he would not feel uncomfortable with this arrangement given the small scale of the projects (ten units or less).

Building department funding

Finally, an attendee questioned if outsourcing plan checks to private professionals would exacerbate building department funding shortages. Ward clarified that applicants must still pay plan check fees to the jurisdiction even if they utilize a third-party reviewer under AB 253.

Looking ahead

AB 253 is currently in effect, but the discussion makes it clear that the bill is a work in progress. Assemblymember Ward acknowledged that testing new housing policies sometimes requires adjustments, and welcomed technical feedback from professionals in the field to help draft future "cleanup language" to ensure the law works correctly in practice.