California Residential Private Permitting Review Act: residential building permits.
Do you support it?
Want to know if it passes?
We'll email you when AB 253 moves — a committee vote, a floor vote, or a signature. Nothing else.
Free forever · unsubscribe in one click.
Your answer was recorded either way.
Which district are you in?
Your ZIP is all we need to match you to your own representatives — so we can tell you how they voted on AB 253.
You're tracking AB 253
We'll email you the moment it moves.
AB 253 — California Residential Private Permitting Review Act: residential building permits.
Last action — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 487, Statutes of 2025.
No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.
-
✓Introduced
-
✓In Committee
-
✓Passed Assembly
-
✓Passed Senate
-
5To Executive
-
6Enacted
This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced January 15, 2025. It awaits signature.
Next likely step: the executive signs it into law or issues a veto.
Prognosis
Where this bill stands today.
Odds of enactment
ModerateHow often bills like it became law.
-
To Executive
Current position in the legislative process.
-
2 sponsors
1 primary, 1 co-sponsors signed on.
-
Single-party support
Sponsorship is currently within one party (2 D).
-
Cleared a recorded vote
Passed 10 recorded votes so far.
Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.
Summary
Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. 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. 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 specified reasons. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Bill Text
- Chaptered 10/10/25 - Chaptered Current pdf October 10, 2025
- Enrolled 09/16/25 - Enrolled pdf September 16, 2025
- Amended 09/04/25 - Amended Senate pdf September 04, 2025
- Amended 08/29/25 - Amended Senate pdf August 29, 2025
- Amended 07/17/25 - Amended Senate pdf July 17, 2025
- Amended 07/03/25 - Amended Senate pdf July 03, 2025
- Amended 03/13/25 - Amended Assembly pdf March 13, 2025
- Introduced 01/15/25 - Introduced pdf January 15, 2025
- AB253 View text html
Action History
-
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 487, Statutes of 2025.
-
Approved by the Governor.
-
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.
-
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
-
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 3369.).
-
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2906.).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 29).
-
In committee: Referred to suspense file.
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (July 15).
-
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 2).
-
Re-referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and HOUSING.
-
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
-
Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 952.).
-
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
-
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (March 19).
-
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
-
Read second time and amended.
-
(Pending re-refer to Com. on APPR.)
-
Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 616.)
-
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (March 12).
-
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (March 12). Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
-
(Pending re-refer to Com. on L. GOV.)
-
Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 511.)
-
Re-referred to Coms. on H. & C.D. and L. GOV. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96.
-
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D.
-
From printer. May be heard in committee February 15.
-
Read first time. To print.
Sponsors
- Christopher M. Ward · Primary
- Sharon Quirk-Silva · Cosponsor
Sponsorship breakdown
Export CSV (upgrade) →1 sponsors · 1 co-sponsors · 120 not signed on
Sponsors (1)
- Ward, Christopher M. Democratic
Co-sponsors (1)
- Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic
Not signed on (120)
120 members have not signed on to this bill.
Show all 120 →"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.
Votes
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 59 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 17 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 77 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| % of votes cast | 96% | 0% | 0% | 4% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Addis, Dawn | Democratic | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ahrens, Patrick | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Yea |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bains, Jasmeet | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Garcia, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Krell, Maggy | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Patel, Darshana R. | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ransom, Rhodesia | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Celeste | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Michelle | Democratic | Yea |
| Rogers, Chris | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Schultz, Nick | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Solache, Jr., José Luis | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Yea |
| Castillo, Leticia | Republican | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Yea |
| DeMaio, Carl | Republican | Yea |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Not Voting |
| Ellis, Stan | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Not Voting |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Jeff | Republican | Yea |
| Hadwick, Heather | Republican | Yea |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Yea |
| Johnson, Natasha | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Not Voting |
| Macedo, Alexandra | Republican | Yea |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Yea |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
| Tangipa, David J. | Republican | Yea |
| Wallis, Greg | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 30 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 40 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (40)
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Richardson, Laura | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Richardson, Laura | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Dahle, Megan | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 8 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 91% | 0% | 0% | 9% |
How each member voted (11)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Arreguín, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Caballero, Anna M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Cortese, Dave | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Lena A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Grayson, Timothy S. | Democratic | Yea |
| Padilla, Stephen C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wahab, Aisha | Democratic | Yea |
| Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Democratic | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 86% | 0% | 0% | 14% |
How each member voted (7)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Arreguín, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Cabaldon, Christopher | Democratic | Yea |
| Durazo, Maria Elena | Democratic | Yea |
| Laird, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Wiener, Scott D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Choi, Steven S. | Republican | Yea |
| Seyarto, Kelly | Republican | Not Voting |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 57 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Republican | 17 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Unaffiliated | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 76 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| % of votes cast | 95% | 0% | 0% | 5% |
How each member voted (80)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Essayli | — | Yea |
| Addis, Dawn | Democratic | Yea |
| Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ahrens, Patrick | Democratic | Yea |
| Alvarez, David | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Bains, Jasmeet | Democratic | Yea |
| Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca | Democratic | Yea |
| Bennett, Steve | Democratic | Yea |
| Berman, Marc | Democratic | Yea |
| Boerner, Tasha | Democratic | Yea |
| Bonta, Mia | Democratic | Yea |
| Bryan, Isaac G. | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Connolly, Damon | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Yea |
| Garcia, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Gipson, Mike A. | Democratic | Yea |
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Harabedian, John | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Yea |
| Irwin, Jacqui | Democratic | Yea |
| Jackson, Corey A. | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Krell, Maggy | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Lowenthal, Josh | Democratic | Yea |
| McKinnor, Tina | Democratic | Yea |
| Muratsuchi, Al | Democratic | Yea |
| Nguyen, Stephanie | Democratic | Yea |
| Ortega, Liz | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Papan, Diane | Democratic | Yea |
| Patel, Darshana R. | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Petrie-Norris, Cottie | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ramos, James C. | Democratic | Yea |
| Ransom, Rhodesia | Democratic | Yea |
| Rivas, Robert | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Celeste | Democratic | Yea |
| Rodriguez, Michelle | Democratic | Yea |
| Rogers, Chris | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Schiavo, Pilar | Democratic | Yea |
| Schultz, Nick | Democratic | Yea |
| Sharp-Collins, LaShae | Democratic | Yea |
| Solache, Jr., José Luis | Democratic | Yea |
| Soria, Esmeralda | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Valencia, Avelino | Democratic | Yea |
| Ward, Christopher M. | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Zbur, Rick Chavez | Democratic | Yea |
| Alanis, Juan | Republican | Yea |
| Castillo, Leticia | Republican | Yea |
| Chen, Phillip | Republican | Yea |
| Davies, Laurie | Republican | Not Voting |
| DeMaio, Carl | Republican | Yea |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Not Voting |
| Ellis, Stan | Republican | Yea |
| Flora, Heath | Republican | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Gonzalez, Jeff | Republican | Yea |
| Hadwick, Heather | Republican | Yea |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Yea |
| Lackey, Tom | Republican | Yea |
| Macedo, Alexandra | Republican | Yea |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Yea |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
| Tangipa, David J. | Republican | Yea |
| Wallis, Greg | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 10 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 13 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| % of votes cast | 87% | 0% | 0% | 13% |
How each member voted (15)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Arambula, Joaquin | Democratic | Yea |
| Calderon, Lisa | Democratic | Yea |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Elhawary, Sade | Democratic | Yea |
| Fong, Mike | Democratic | Yea |
| González, Mark | Democratic | Yea |
| Hart, Gregg | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Pellerin, Gail | Democratic | Yea |
| Solache, Jr., José Luis | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Dixon, Diane | Republican | Not Voting |
| Hadwick, Heather | Republican | Yea |
| Sanchez, Kate | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Republican | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Democratic | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| % of votes cast | 100% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
How each member voted (10)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Carrillo, Juan | Democratic | Yea |
| Pacheco, Blanca | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Ransom, Rhodesia | Democratic | Yea |
| Rubio, Blanca E. | Democratic | Yea |
| Stefani, Catherine | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Hoover, Josh | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
| Party | Yea | Nay | Present | Not Voting |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Democratic | 7 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Republican | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Unaffiliated | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 11 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| % of votes cast | 92% | 0% | 0% | 8% |
How each member voted (12)
| Member | Party | Vote |
|---|---|---|
| Ávila Farías | — | Yea |
| Caloza, Jessica | Democratic | Yea |
| Gabriel, Jesse | Democratic | Not Voting |
| Haney, Matt | Democratic | Yea |
| Kalra, Ash | Democratic | Yea |
| Lee, Alex | Democratic | Yea |
| Quirk-Silva, Sharon | Democratic | Yea |
| Wicks, Buffy | Democratic | Yea |
| Wilson, Lori D. | Democratic | Yea |
| Gallagher, James | Republican | Yea |
| Patterson, Joe | Republican | Yea |
| Ta, Tri | Republican | Yea |
Subjects
Frequently asked questions
- What does AB 253 do?
- Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes a county's or city's governing body to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law. This bill, the California Residential Private Permitting Review Act, would require a county or city to prepare a residential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website, if the county or city prescribes residential building permit fees. Existing law requires a county's or city's building department to enforce the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, and other rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law pertaining to standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law requires a county or city, upon the applicant's request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted with an application for a residential building permit to comply with the State Housing Law or local ordinances adopted pursuant to the State Housing Law, when the building department takes more than 30 days, as specified, to complete the plan check. This bill would remove the above-described requirement for a county or city to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans when the building department takes more than 30 days to complete the plan check. Until January 1, 2036, the bill would instead, upon an application for a residential building permit being deemed complete, as provided, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which the city or county will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. The bill would authorize an applicant to retain a private professional provider, as defined, to perform the plan check, if the estimated timeframe exceeds 30 business days or the city or county has not determined the completed application is compliant within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. The bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. The bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit or notify the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires a local agency to determine whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined, is complete and provide written notice of this determination to the applicant not later than 15 business days after the local agency received the application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time periods. Existing law requires the local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal a finding that the application for a postentitlement phase permit is incomplete or noncompliant, as provided. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would deem the local agency to be in compliance with the above-described requirements governing applications for postentitlement phase permits as those requirements pertain to the residential building permit. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, the act makes the public entity liable for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill, until January 1, 2036, if a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, as described above, would require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, the bill would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any residential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and each city to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that includes, among other specified mandatory elements, a housing element. Existing law requires the planning agency of the county or city, after the legislative body has adopted a general plan, to submit an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation, and the Department of Housing and Community Development by April 1 of each year that includes, among other things, the number of units of housing demolished and new units of housing that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of occupancy thus far in the housing element cycle, and the income category, by area median income category, that each unit of housing satisfies. This bill, beginning April, 1, 2027, and until January 1, 2036, would require a city or county to include in the above-described annual report the number of residential building permits reviewed by the city or county, the number reviewed by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions, as described above, and the number of full-time equivalent staff members directly involved in the processing of residential building permits, as provided. 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. 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 specified reasons. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
- Who sponsors AB 253?
- AB 253 is sponsored by Ward, Christopher M. (Democratic) and Quirk-Silva, Sharon (Democratic).
- What is the current status of AB 253?
- This bill has been sent to the executive. Introduced January 15, 2025. It awaits signature.
- Where can I track AB 253?
- Track AB 253 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.
Make your voice heard on AB 253
Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.
Stay ahead of AB 253
Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously
One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.
Track this bill →