Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Permitting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly committee advances AB 253 to allow licensed third‑party post‑entitlement plan checks
Summary
The Assembly Local Government Committee on March 12 voted to pass as amended AB 253, a bill by Assemblymember Ward that would let homeowners and small developers hire licensed, insured third‑party professionals to review post‑entitlement permit applications if a local building department cannot complete the review within 30 days.
The California State Assembly Local Government Committee on March 12 voted to pass as amended AB 253 (Ward), sending the bill to the Appropriations Committee. The measure, presented by Assemblymember Quirk‑Silva on behalf of Assemblymember Ward, would allow licensed, insured third‑party professionals to perform post‑entitlement plan checks for small residential projects when local building departments cannot complete reviews within 30 days.
AB 253 addresses delays in post‑entitlement permitting that supporters said stall construction and drive up costs for small projects. “California is in the middle of a housing crisis and delays in the residential building permitting process are often cited as significant constraints restricting the housing production pipeline,” Assemblymember Quirk‑Silva said in opening remarks while presenting the bill for the author. She told the committee the bill “would allow homeowners and developers to hire licensed third party professionals to review a certain post entitlement permits if it would take the local building department longer than 30 days to conduct that review.”
Nolan Gray, senior director of legislation and research at California YIMBY, the bill’s sponsor, told the committee that post‑entitlement permit reviews can add months to project schedules. “Even after projects receive full approval, post entitlement permits, such as building permits, can take months or even years to secure,” Gray said. He cited the hearing’s statistic that “on average, a fully entitled apartment building in California takes 9 months to obtain post entitlement permits,” and said the bill targets small projects—one‑ to 10‑unit residential developments—by offering an alternate, licensed reviewer when local agencies face resource constraints.
Supporters at the hearing included the California Chamber of Commerce (Adam Regli), the Housing Action Coalition and Bay Area Council (represented by Catherine Charles), the Chamber of Progress, and housing advocacy and development groups represented by Raymond Contreras of Lighthouse Public Affairs. Adam Regli said only his organization’s name and position in support.
Representatives of the League of California Cities and the California State Association of Counties told the committee they were not opposed but had “concerns” and have been discussing technical changes with the author’s office. Mark Neuberger of the California State Association of Counties said his group “shared the same concerns with Cal Cities” and looks forward to continued conversations with the author.
Several committee members voiced support during the hearing. Assemblymember Wicks said she “love[s] this bill” and described permitting delays as unacceptable; others including Assemblymember Tan expressed support as well and asked to be added as coauthors.
The committee’s motion to “pass as amended to the Appropriations Committee” carried on a roll call. The clerk recorded ayes from Carrillo, Ta, Hoover, Pacheco, Quirk‑Silva, Ransom, Rubio, Stefani, Wicks and Wilson. The committee chair announced the bill “is out” following the vote.
The bill as presented would preserve local oversight but allow licensed private professionals—architects, engineers or similar—when a local agency cannot complete a post‑entitlement review within the 30‑day window. Proponents described the change as a workload‑management tool for local building departments and a way to reduce delay‑related costs for smaller builders and homeowners. Opponents (those expressing concerns) asked for further discussions with the author’s office; no organization at the hearing offered a formal opposition vote.
Next steps: AB 253 now goes to the Assembly Appropriations Committee for fiscal review and further consideration. The committee record shows the bill passed out of Local Government with unanimous recorded support at the March 12 hearing.
Votes at a glance: - Motion: Pass AB 253 as amended to the Appropriations Committee. - Outcome: Passed (committee vote recorded as ayes: Carrillo; Ta; Hoover; Pacheco; Quirk‑Silva; Ransom; Rubio; Stefani; Wicks; Wilson).
