Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law, and fees to defray the cost of enforcement required by the law to be carried out by local enforcement agencies.

This bill, the California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act, would require a building department of the county or city to prepare a schedule of the above-described fees and post the schedule on the county or citys internet website if the city or county prescribes the fees.

Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Code, which is also referred to as the State Building Standards Code. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law. Existing law requires the local agency, upon the applicants request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a residential building permit, when there is excessive delay in checking the plans and specifications. Existing law defines excessive delay as a local agency taking more than 30 days after submittal of a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicants set of plans and specifications, as specified. Existing law authorizes the local agency to inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the law.

This bill would authorize an applicant to contract or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider, as defined, to check plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a building permit would, if the local agency has not completed checking plans and specifications within 30 business days of receiving the application. The bill would also authorize an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider to complete an inspection as part of an application for a building permit if the local agency has not completed the inspection within 5 business days of receiving a request for an inspection. The bill would require a completed application for a building permit, require a local agency, upon the applicants request, to perform plan-checking services and assess the plans and specifications to ensure that the plans and specifications comply with the State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code, as provided. The bill would require a local agency to directly perform or contract with or employ a private professional provider to perform those plan-checking services and take prescribed actions, including issuing or denying the building permit within a specified timeframe, as prescribed. If a private professional provider performs these plan-checking services, the bill would require the private professional provider to prepare an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that the private professional provider they performed the plan-checking services or inspection and that the plans and specification or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, as specified, if the plans and specifications or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code. The bill would require the applicant specifications comply with specified law, and to submit to the local agency a specified report of the plans and specifications check or inspection, which includes the affidavit, plan-checking services within 5 business days of the completion of the check or inspection. those services. The bill would require the local agency, within 30 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and issue or deny a building permit if the plans and specifications, building, and the private professional provider complies or fails specifications comply or fail to comply with the State Housing Law or the California Building Standards Code, as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to charge the applicant reasonably necessary fees to defray the costs directly attributable to performing plan-checking services pursuant to these provisions. The bill would authorize an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to a local appeals board. The bill would provide that the bills provisions do not apply to health facilities, public buildings, or highrise structures. specified facilities, including health facilities and public buildings.

By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law, and fees to defray the cost of enforcement required by the law to be carried out by local enforcement agencies.

This bill, the California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act, would require a building department of the county or city to prepare a schedule of the above-described fees and post the schedule on the county or citys internet website if the city or county prescribes the fees.

Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law. Existing law requires the local agency, upon the applicants request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a residential building permit, when there is excessive delay in checking the plans and specifications. Existing law defines excessive delay as a local agency taking more than 30 days after submittal of a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicants set of plans and specifications, as specified. Existing law authorizes the local agency to inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the law.

This bill would authorize an applicant to contract or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider, as defined, to check plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a building permit if the local agency has not completed checking plans and specifications within 30 business days of receiving the application. The bill would also authorize an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider to complete an inspection as part of an application for a building permit if the local agency has not completed the inspection within 5 business days of receiving a request for an inspection. The bill would require a local agency to create a list of suggested private professional providers and post the list on its internet website. The bill would require a private professional provider to prepare an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that the private professional provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection and that the plans and specification or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, as specified, if the plans and specifications or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code. The bill would require the applicant to submit to the local agency a specified report of the plans and specifications check or inspection, which includes the affidavit, within 5 business days of the completion of the check or inspection. The bill would require the local agency, within 30 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and issue or deny a building permit if the plans and specifications, building, and the private professional provider complies or fails to comply with the State Housing Law or the California Building Standards Code, as specified. The bill would authorize an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to a local appeals board. The bill would provide that the bills provisions do not apply to health facilities, public buildings, or highrise structures.

By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

Existing law, the State Housing Law, establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law, and fees to defray the cost of enforcement required by the law to be carried out by local enforcement agencies.

This bill, the California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act, would require a building department of the county or city to prepare a schedule of the above-described fees and post the schedule on the county or citys internet website if the city or county prescribes the fees.

Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law. Existing law requires the local agency, upon the applicants request, to contract with or employ temporarily a private entity or person to check the plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a residential building permit, when there is excessive delay in checking the plans and specifications. Existing law defines excessive delay as a local agency taking more than 30 days after submittal of a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicants set of plans and specifications, as specified. Existing law authorizes the local agency to inspect any building or premises whenever necessary to secure compliance with, or prevent a violation of, any provision of the law.

This bill would authorize an applicant to contract or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider, as defined, to check plans and specifications submitted as part of an application for a building permit if the local agency has not completed checking plans and specifications within 30 days of receiving the application. The bill would also authorize an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicants own expense a private professional provider to complete an inspection as part of an application for a building permit if the local agency has not completed the inspection within 5 days of receiving a request for an inspection. The bill would require a local agency to create a list of suggested private professional providers and post the list on its internet website. The bill would require a private professional provider to prepare an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that the private professional provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection and that the plans and specification or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code, as specified, if the plans and specifications or building complies with the State Housing Law and the California Building Standards Code. The bill would require the applicant to submit to the local agency a specified report of the plans and specifications check or inspection, which includes the affidavit, within 5 days of the completion of the check or inspection. The bill would require the local agency, within 30 days of receiving the report, to consider the report and issue or deny a building permit if the plans and specifications, building, and the private professional provider complies or fails to comply with the State Housing Law or the California Building Standards Code, as specified. The bill would authorize an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to a local appeals board. The bill would provide that the bills provisions do not apply to health facilities, public buildings, or highrise structures.

By expanding the crime of perjury and imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

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.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Senator María Elena Durazo, Chair

2023 - 2024 Regular

California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act: fees: building permits

Requires a local agency to complete plan check services for a building permit within 30 business days of a request from an applicant or employ a private professional to perform plan checking services.

Background

The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public—including land use authority.

State Housing Law. Prior to 1962, the Legislature established minimum building requirements for dwellings in statutory form, and these requirements only applied to incorporated cities, unless a county voluntarily adopted them. In 1962, the Legislature enacted State Housing Law, which provides requirements and procedures for uniform statewide code enforcement to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and accessory buildings. Among other things, State Housing Law delegates responsibility to state administrative agencies for the adoption of building standards, applies state building codes uniformly, and directs local agencies’ administration of code enforcement.

Building codes. The California Building Standards Code (Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (BSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (the Building Code), fire safety standards (the Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (the Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen). The BSC updates the Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle—the BSC published new standards that went into effect on January 1, 2023. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. New construction and improvements to existing buildings must comply with the current building codes, and improvements to an existing building may trigger additional code upgrades for other parts of a building.

Building permit approvals. A builder may need a range of administrative permits from the local agency in order to actually complete the work to construct or modify a building. These permits can include building permits and other permits for: demolition; grading; excavation; electrical, plumbing, or mechanical work; encroachment in the public right-of-way; roofing; water and sewer connections or septic systems; fire sprinklers; and home occupations.

City and county building departments enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and local zoning codes that specify the allowable forms and uses of buildings within a city or county’s jurisdiction. Within building departments, the positions responsible for evaluating building permits for compliance include building officials, inspectors, plan checkers, and civil engineers. State Housing Law also allows local agencies to hire private entities on a temporary basis to perform plan checking services. Some agencies contract out a portion of their workload during especially busy times, or certain portions of the building permit review process, such as reviewing compliance with energy efficiency requirements. Other local agencies contract out nearly all plan checking functions to a private firm.

Fee authority. The police power grants cities and counties broad authority to impose regulatory fees for the enforcement of its laws, subject to limitations in the California Constitution and state law. Article XIIID, Section 1 of the California Constitution requires that any fees bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the burden on the governmental activity. The Mitigation Fee Act also limits local agency fees for building permits and other permits to the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged.

Building permit approval requirements. Various state laws prescribe timelines for action on building permits by local agencies. State Housing Law requires local agencies to contract with a private entity on a temporary basis to perform the plan checking function, upon request of an applicant for a building permit, if there is an excessive delay in checking plans as part of a building permit application for a residential building of up to four units. An excessive delay means 30 days after submittal of a completed application, or 45 days for an application that required a resubmittal, including the days elapsed in the initial review. Similar provisions apply to building permits for non-residential buildings of up to three stories, but local agencies have 50 days for initial review and a total of 60 days if there was a resubmittal of the application. Local agencies that are required to contract out under State Housing Law can charge an applicant fees in an amount necessary to defray costs directly attributable to hiring someone to perform plan checking services.

The building code also requires that every city and county must have a process that allows appeals of building department decisions to either the governing body or an appeals board comprising individuals knowledgeable about building codes, but that are not employees of the building department.

Additionally, in 2022, the Legislature enacted a framework establishing a timeline and process for approving all local “post-entitlement permits,” including building permits, needed to construct housing that had already received approval from a planning department (AB 2234, R. Rivas, 2022). AB 2234 requires cities and counties to process non-discretionary permits in an expedited manner. First, the city or county must determine whether an application is complete, and notify the applicant, within 15 days after receiving the application. If the local agency determines an application is incomplete, the local agency must provide the applicant with a list of incomplete items and a description of how the application can be made complete, but the local agency cannot request new information that was not on the original list of needed information. After receiving a notice the application was incomplete, an applicant may cure and address those items. Upon receipt of a corrected application, the local agency must notify the applicant within 15 business days whether the additional application has remedied all incomplete items. If a local agency does not meet the timelines required for determining whether an application is complete, and the application or resubmitted application states it is for a post-entitlement phase permit, AB 2234 deems the application or resubmitted application complete.

Cities and counties must then complete review of the application within 30 days for projects with 25 units or less, and 60 days for projects 26 units or more, unless the city or county finds that the permit might have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, within the applicable time limit. If a city or county finds a complete application is noncompliant, it must 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 the applicable time limit and must allow the applicant to correct the application. Cities and counties must establish an appeals process. If an applicant appeals, the local agency must make a final determination within:

• 60 business days of the appeal for a project of 25 units or fewer; or
• 90 business days of the appeal for a project of 26 units or more.

AB 2234 also requires cities and counties to compile one or more lists of information that will be required from any applicant for a post-entitlement permit. Cities and counties can revise these lists, but revised lists cannot apply to pending permit reviews. The city or county must post an example of a complete set of post-entitlement permits for at least five types of housing projects. Cities and counties were required to post these lists and examples by January 1, 2024.

Finally, AB 2234 requires cities and counties to process permits online. As of January 1, 2024, all local agencies in the County of Los Angeles, and all other cities and counties with populations of 75,000 or greater must process permits online, but can get a two-year extension if they make specified findings. All other cities and counties must comply by January 1, 2028, but may extend this deadline by five years if they make specified findings.

However, AB 2234 only applies to post-entitlement permits for housing developments. NAIOP California, which represents commercial and industrial real estate owners, wants the Legislature to speed up permitting for all development.

Proposed Law

Assembly Bill 2433 requires a local agency to complete plan checking services for a building permit within 30 business days of a request of the applicant or employ a private professional to perform plan checking services. An applicant may issue the request to the local agency if the local agency has not completed a plan check within 30 business days of submission of a complete building permit application.

AB 2433 specifies if the local agency performs the plan checking services, the local agency must approve or deny the building permit within 30 business days of the request. If the local agency denies the permit, it must notify the applicant and specify the parts of the application that are not compliant with State Housing Law and the building code. If the application complies with the building code and State Housing Law, it must issue the permit.

If the local agency employs a private provider, and the plans comply with State Housing Law and the building code, the provider must prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury that states:

• The private professional provider performed plan checking services; and
• The plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the building code.

The private provider must submit a report to the local agency within five business days of completing plan checking services that includes the affidavit and any information required by the local agency. Once the local agency receives the report, it has 30 business days to do one of the following based on the report:

• Issue the permit; or
• Deny the permit and notify the applicant that the plans do not comply with state housing law or the building code. The notice must include the requirements for the plans to comply.

An applicant may appeal a denial of a building permit to the local appeals board.

AB 2433 allows the local agency to charge reasonable fees in an amount reasonably necessary to defray costs directly attributable to the plan checking services. It also requires a county or a city, including a charter city, to post a schedule of its fees on its internet website.

The bill excludes health facilities, public buildings, and buildings with floors for human occupancy located more than 40 feet above the lowest floor having building access.

The bill includes various definitions and findings and declarations to support its purposes.

Comments

1. Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. AB 2433 aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.”

2. Brain drain. Ensuring the safety of buildings constructed in their jurisdiction is a core municipal responsibility. AB 2433 requires local agencies that can’t meet the 30 business day review requirement to contract out with a private provider for plan checking services. Supporters of the measure argue this bill doesn’t necessitate contracting out because local agencies can avail themselves of a separate option to charge applicants for any costs associated with additional employees or overtime necessary to complete the work. In practice, it will be difficult for local agencies to rapidly increase staffing when an applicant demands review of their application. Similarly, because the contracting process can be lengthy, a local agency won’t ink a one-time contract for a specific building permit. Instead, a local agency, knowing it could be subject to the bill’s requirements at any time, is likely to sign a longer-term contract with a firm for on-demand services, and any complicated project will be handed off to contractors, who are often staffed by former local government building officials. As a result, funds will flow to contracting firms rather than the local agencies themselves, further reducing the ability of local governments to hire qualified building officials. The end result may be that more agencies contract out an increasingly large share of their workload to private entities and retain fewer of their own employees. This could further funnel expertise out of local governments and into private entities, for whom other motivations aside from the public interest come into play and who may not have sufficient knowledge of other applicable local laws, such as the zoning code. The Committee may wish to consider whether the AB 2433’s potential to accelerate development outweighs the impact to local agency building departments.

3. Sure, but will it work? AB 2433 intends to expedite building permit reviews, but lacks key provisions that would be necessary to achieve that goal, including:

• Local agencies have a time limit for review under the bill, but there is no time limit imposed when a private entity performs the plan check. Accordingly, plan checks by private providers could result in significant waits for permit review, despite the intent of the bill to accelerate permitting.
• The bill does not include any provisions regarding what the local agency contracting process must look like. As noted above, the contracting process could take a significant amount of time, delaying permit review. Furthermore, in some counties, few if any qualified professionals are available, potentially making it difficult for local agencies to contract out to comply with the bill.
• AB 2433 says if the plans comply with the building code and State Housing Law, the private provider must provide an affidavit stating so. But the bill doesn’t specifically require the private provider to review the plans for compliance with State Housing Law or the building code, nor does it provide for any procedures when the plans do not comply.
• AB 2433 requires examination of the building permit for consistency with State Housing Law and the building code, but does not include consistency with local zoning codes that may also apply. As a result, local agencies may take additional time to review for consistency with other applicable local regulations, even if the review for consistency with State Housing Law and the building code are complete.

Absent further specification, AB 2433 may impose contracting out requirements on local agencies they have difficulty complying with, and may not provide any faster permitting for projects.

4. What’s the difference? State Housing Law already allows applicants for nonresidential projects and small residential projects to request that local agencies contract out if there’s excessive delay in approving their permit. AB 2433 imposes parallel requirements, with the following significant differences:

• Existing law says that a local agency is not required to contract out if they determine that there aren’t qualified contractors available, while AB 2433 does not.
• Existing law provides that a local agency may contract on a temporary basis, but AB 2433 does not have any limitation on contract duration.
• Existing law limits the types of structures to smaller residential buildings and excludes hotels and motels, while AB 2433 applies to all residential structures except those that exceed the height limit in the bill;
• AB 2433 requires the local agency to issue or deny the permit if the local agency or the contractor determines it complies with the building code and State Housing Law. Existing law does not include this requirement, except for housing projects under the laws applicable to post-entitlement permits; and
• AB 2433 requires contractors to issue a report after completing review of the permit, and the local agency must approve or deny the permit based on the report, while existing law does not have these requirements.

The practical significance of these changes is unclear. However, builders may attempt to use the provisions of AB 2433 to compel local agencies to issue building permits they otherwise wouldn’t. Specifically, AB 2433 specifies that if a local agency contracts out the plan checking services, it must approve or deny the permit based on the report. This provision may invite litigation over whether the local agency’s decision must be based solely on the report, or whether the local agency can consider other information in approving or denying the permit, such as if the local agency staff wants to double-check the work of the consultant and review the application itself. Similarly, because AB 2433 says that the local agency must approve the permit if it complies with State Housing Law and the building standards code, some may argue that a local agency must approve the permit even if it does not comply with other applicable laws, such as the local zoning code.

Arguments that the local agency’s review is constrained, however, are unlikely to be successful. The courts have held that local agencies cannot be stopped from revoking a building permit if the building permit violates applicable laws, even if the building permit was issued by the local agency (Pettitt v. City of Fresno (1973) 34 Cal.App.3d 813). Therefore, in the case that where a local agency considers the report as required by the bill, and then separately makes a conflicting determination to deny the permit because it discovers a violation or identifies a conflict with another applicable law, a court would likely rule that the local agency properly denied the permit despite the potentially ambiguous provisions of AB 2433.

6. Pay up. By many accounts, local building departments are underfunded and short staffed, leading to delays in permitting. Some of that is the reluctance of local agencies to approve fee increases to keep pace with the increased workload associated with building code requirements that continually increase in complexity through triennial building code updates. Proponents of AB 2433 say they would gladly see fees raised if it shortened timelines for approval, and argue that the benefit to local agencies from this bill is that a local agency can choose to do the work in house and charge a fee to the applicant. However, AB 2433 likely does not expand local fee authority for two reasons:

• Some agencies already allow applicants to pay higher fees to expedite their permitting process. In some cases, local agencies establish up front fee schedules that allow expedited permitting. In other cases, they charge individual applicants in arrears for the actual costs of expediting the permit.
• AB 2433 includes provisions limiting the fees to “reasonable fees in an amount reasonably necessary to defray costs directly attributable to performing plan checking services.” By contrast, existing law grants local governments less proscribed authority to charge fees for building permits up to the “reasonable cost of providing the service,” and explicitly allows local agencies to include “costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any necessary findings and determinations.”

An alternative approach to assist local agencies in expediting permitting while retaining competent staff would be to narrow the bill to its fee provisions and explicitly grant the authority to local agencies to charge fees to applicants for the actual costs of their expedited review.

7. Charter city? AB 2433’s requirement to post a schedule of fees applies to charter cities. The remainder of the bill applies to local agencies, but it does not define what agencies are covered. In any case, the bill does not include the customary findings and declarations to state that the bill’s subject is a matter of statewide concern and therefore applies to charter cities. As a result, it is unclear whether the bill will apply to charter cities.

8. Mandate. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local governments for the costs of new or expanded state mandated local programs. Because AB 2433 expands the crime of perjury and imposes new duties on local officials, Legislative Counsel says that it imposes a new state mandate. AB 2433 disclaims the state's responsibility for providing reimbursement by citing local governments’ authority to charge for the costs of implementing the bill’s provisions and because the bill creates a new crime.

9. Related legislation. AB 2557 (Ortega), which is pending in this Committee, requires a contractor to fulfill certain requirements, including performance reporting and performance auditing, if the contractor enters into a contract with a local government to perform functions that currently are or were performed by public employees.

10. Coming and going. The Senate Rules Committee has ordered a double referral of AB 2433: first to the Committee on Local Government, which has jurisdiction over local permitting, and second to the Committee on Housing.

Assembly Actions

Assembly Local Government Committee: 8-0

Assembly Housing and Community Development Committee: 9-0

Assembly Appropriations Committee: 14-0

Assembly Floor: 67-0

Support and Opposition

(5/31/24)

Support: Naiop California (Sponsor)
Associated General Contractors
Bay Area Council
Building Owners and Managers Association of California
California Apartment Association
California Building Industry Association
California Business Properties Association
California Business Roundtable
California Chamber of Commerce
California Manufacturing Technology Association
Eden Housing
El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce
El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce
Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce
Folsom Chamber of Commerce
Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)
Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce
Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce
Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce
Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce
Shingle Springs/Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce
UCAN Chambers of Commerce
United Chamber Advocacy Network Ucan
Yimby Action
Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce

Opposition: California Building Officials
California Fire Chiefs Association
California School Employees Association
California State Association of Counties (CSAC)
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
Fire Districts Association of California
League of California Cities
Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC)
Urban Counties of California (UCC)

-- END --

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2433

Author:(Quirk-Silva and Ward)

As Amended Ver:May 20, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Requires a local agency that has not completed plan-checking services within 30 business days of receiving a completed application for a building permit to complete plan-checking services and issue or deny a building permit within specified time frames, upon request by the applicant for the building permit.

Major Provisions

1. Requires, if a local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of a completed application for a building permit within 30 business days of receiving the application, the local agency to perform plan-checking services and assess the plans and specifications to ensure that the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code, pursuant to the following:
   1. Requires a local agency to perform plan-checking services by either of the following:
      1. The local agency may complete the plan-checking services and do either of the following within 30 business days of the request of the applicant:
         1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code.
         2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications do not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Standards Code if the plans and specifications do not comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code. The notice shall specify the requirements for the plans and specifications to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code.
      2. The local agency may contract with or employ a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services.
   2. Requires, if the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code, the private professional provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating all of the following:
      1. The private professional provider performed the plan-checking services pursuant to this bill.
      2. The plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code.
   3. Requires the private professional provider to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of the plan-checking services. The report shall include both of the following:
      1. The affidavit described in b), above.
      2. Information required by the local agency.
   4. Requires, within 30 business days of receiving the report pursuant to c), above, the local agency to consider the report and, based on the report, do either of the following:
      1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code.
      2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications do not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Standards Code if the plans and specifications do not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Standards Code. The notice shall specify the requirements for the plans and specifications to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Standards Code.
2. Allows a local agency to charge the applicant reasonable fees in an amount reasonably necessary to defray costs directly attributable to performing plan-checking services pursuant to this bill.
3. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to the local appeals board, as specified.
4. Provides that this bill shall not apply to any of the following buildings:
   1. Health facilities.
   2. Public buildings.
   3. Buildings of any type of construction or occupancy that have floors used for human occupancy located more than 40 feet above the lowest floor having building access.
5. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.
6. Provides the following terms for the purposes of this bill:
   1. "Applicant" means a person who submits an application.
   2. "Application" means an application for a building permit.
   3. "Health facility" has the same meaning as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code.
   4. "Private professional provider" means a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or an architect licensed pursuant to the Architects Practice Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) who has completed specified continuing education requirements and does not have a financial interest in the building permit or preparing the plans and specifications.

COMMENTS

The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (Building Code), fire safety standards (Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The CBSC updates the California Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

According to Annual Progress Report data self-reported by local governments to the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD), it takes an average of 279 days for a housing development with five or more units to receive a building permit after it has received entitlement from the local planning department. Buildings with two to four units typically move from "entitled" to "permitted" within 223 days, and accessory dwelling units, which have a statutory approval timeline of 60 days from a complete application, still take an average of 161 days to be issued building permits.

Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions upon the request of an applicant when there is an "excessive delay" in checking the applicant's plans and specifications.

For a nonresidential permit for a building other than a hotel or motel that is three stories or less, "excessive delay" generally means the building department or building division of the local agency has taken more than 50 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant's set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking.

For a residential building permit, "excessive delay" generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant's set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. "Residential building" means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height.

According to the Author

Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. AB 2433 aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and issuing permits. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP CA, state, "The above organizations support AB 2433 (Quirk-Silva), legislation that will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly.

"AB 2433 proposes the implementation of flexible fee structures, expedited inspection timelines, and the conditional employment of private professional services. These measures are designed to enhance the speed and predictability of permit processing, alleviating the unnecessary burdens currently borne by project applicants, particularly those in small business sectors and entities working on affordable housing in underserved communities.

"The bill's emphasis on establishing definitive deadlines and permitting the sensible use of private professionals in the inspection process promises to cultivate a more streamlined, transparent, and conducive environment for growth and investment across California. Furthermore, AB 2433 thoughtfully ensures that critical safety and oversight measures remain uncompromised for major projects. We believe that the enactment of AB 2433 represents an essential step towards fostering a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable economic future for all Californians."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Building Officials, in opposition to a prior version of the bill, write, "The California Building Officials (CALBO) regret to inform you that we are strongly opposed to Assembly Bill 2433, which mandates local governments relinquish their duties to third-party contractors after only 30 days of reviewing a development plan. This is especially problematic for large, complicated projects that have multiple agencies involved with the review process. This bill undervalues the expertise of Building Departments by undermining their ability to see a plan through until the end. The members of CALBO are responsible for enforcing building code requirements in nearly all the buildings constructed in California.

"California Building Code Section 110 prescribes the inspections rendered by Building Departments at each step of construction to ensure safety: for example, home building projects can require 10-12 inspections. The timeline for inspections can vary due to increases in the volume of requests – which fluctuate throughout the year – and is subject to the effect of a department triaging priority status.

"Inspectors are required to undergo a significant collection of documentation. It is unclear whether this requirement would carry over to third parties enabled by AB 2433 to perform these tasks. It is also difficult to see how a department would create a course correction when they discover a third-party inspection left health and safety issues unresolved as there is no requirement to reissue a report and departments are not authorized to provide these orders.

AB 2433 would create the duplication of efforts being rendered by Building Departments providing confusion for officials relying upon these inspections to certify compliance. CALBO strongly believes that this bill would be a hinderance for building safety and would cause consternation and confusion for the municipalities tasked with implementation."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the analysis of a prior version of the bill by the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. HCD anticipates an increase in requests for technical assistance within the State Housing Law Program. HCD indicates these costs are minor and absorbable.
2. State-mandated local costs of an unknown amount for local agencies to review reports received by private professional providers and to issue or deny a building permit within 30 business days of receiving the report. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.

VOTES

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-1

YES: Juan Carrillo, Waldron, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Ramos, Ward, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 9-0-0

YES: Ward, Joe Patterson, Grayson, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Sanchez, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson

UPDATED

VERSION: May 20, 2024

CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0003419

ASSEMBLY THIRD READING

ATR Bill Id:AB 2433

Author:(Quirk-Silva and Ward)

As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

Majority vote

SUMMARY

Allows an applicant for a building permit to employ a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services, assess plans and specifications, and complete building inspections if the local agency fails to perform these functions within specified timeframes.

Major Provisions

1. Allows an applicant for a building permit to contract with or employ at the applicant's own expense a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services and assess the plans and specifications to ensure that the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of the application within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.
2. Allows an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicant's own expense a private professional provider to complete the inspection to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five business days of receiving from the applicant a request for an inspection as part of the application for a building permit.
3. Requires a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill to determine compliance with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
4. Requires, if the plans and specifications or the building complies with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, the private professional provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating all of the following:
   1. The private professional provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill.
   2. The plans and specification or building complies with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
5. Requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of the plan-checking services or inspection. The report shall include both of the following:
   1. The affidavit described in 4), above.
   2. Information required by the local agency.
6. Requires, within 30 business days of receiving the report pursuant to 5), above, the local agency to consider the report and, based on the report, do either of the following:
   1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications or building and private professional provider complies with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.
   2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code if the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code. The notice shall specify the requirements for the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
7. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit pursuant to 6), above, to the local appeals board.
8. Provides that this bill shall not apply to any of the following buildings:
   1. Health facilities.
   2. Public buildings.
   3. Highrise structures.
9. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.
10. Provides the following terms for the purposes of this bill:
    1. "Health facility" has the same meaning as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code.
    2. "Highrise structure" means a building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access.
    3. "Private professional provider" means a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or an architect licensed pursuant to the Architects Practice Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code).

COMMENTS

The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (Building Code), fire safety standards (Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The CBSC updates the California Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

According to Annual Progress Report data self-reported by local governments to the California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD), it takes an average of 279 days for a housing development with five or more units to receive a building permit after it has received entitlement from the local planning department. Buildings with two to four units typically move from "entitled" to "permitted" within 223 days, and accessory dwelling units, which have a statutory approval timeline of 60 days from a complete application, still take an average of 161 days to be issued building permits.

Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions upon the request of an applicant when there is an "excessive delay" in checking the applicant's plans and specifications.

For a nonresidential permit for a building other than a hotel or motel that is three stories or less, "excessive delay" generally means the building department or building division of the local agency has taken more than 50 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant's set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking.

For a residential building permit, "excessive delay" generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant's set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. "Residential building" means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height.

According to the Author

Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. AB 2433 aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.

Arguments in Support

A coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP CA, state, "The above organizations support AB 2433 (Quirk-Silva), legislation that will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly.

"AB 2433 proposes the implementation of flexible fee structures, expedited inspection timelines, and the conditional employment of private professional services. These measures are designed to enhance the speed and predictability of permit processing, alleviating the unnecessary burdens currently borne by project applicants, particularly those in small business sectors and entities working on affordable housing in underserved communities.

"The bill's emphasis on establishing definitive deadlines and permitting the sensible use of private professionals in the inspection process promises to cultivate a more streamlined, transparent, and conducive environment for growth and investment across California. Furthermore, AB 2433 thoughtfully ensures that critical safety and oversight measures remain uncompromised for major projects. We believe that the enactment of AB 2433 represents an essential step towards fostering a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable economic future for all Californians."

Arguments in Opposition

The California Building Officials write, "The California Building Officials (CALBO) regret to inform you that we are strongly opposed to Assembly Bill 2433, which mandates local governments relinquish their duties to third-party contractors after only 30 days of reviewing a development plan. This is especially problematic for large, complicated projects that have multiple agencies involved with the review process. This bill undervalues the expertise of Building Departments by undermining their ability to see a plan through until the end. The members of CALBO are responsible for enforcing building code requirements in nearly all the buildings constructed in California.

"California Building Code Section 110 prescribes the inspections rendered by Building Departments at each step of construction to ensure safety: for example, home building projects can require 10-12 inspections. The timeline for inspections can vary due to increases in the volume of requests – which fluctuate throughout the year – and is subject to the effect of a department triaging priority status.

"Inspectors are required to undergo a significant collection of documentation. It is unclear whether this requirement would carry over to third parties enabled by AB 2433 to perform these tasks. It is also difficult to see how a department would create a course correction when they discover a third-party inspection left health and safety issues unresolved as there is no requirement to reissue a report and departments are not authorized to provide these orders.

AB 2433 would create the duplication of efforts being rendered by Building Departments providing confusion for officials relying upon these inspections to certify compliance. CALBO strongly believes that this bill would be a hinderance for building safety and would cause consternation and confusion for the municipalities tasked with implementation."

FISCAL COMMENTS

According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:

1. HCD anticipates an increase in requests for technical assistance within the State Housing Law Program. HCD indicates these costs are minor and absorbable.
2. State-mandated local costs of an unknown amount for local agencies to review reports received by private professional providers and to issue or deny a building permit within 30 business days of receiving the report. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.

VOTES

ASM LOCAL GOVERNMENT: 8-0-1

YES: Juan Carrillo, Waldron, Haney, Kalra, Pacheco, Ramos, Ward, Wilson

ABS, ABST OR NV: Essayli

ASM HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: 9-0-0

YES: Ward, Joe Patterson, Grayson, Kalra, Lee, Quirk-Silva, Reyes, Sanchez, Wilson

ASM APPROPRIATIONS: 14-0-1

YES: Wicks, Sanchez, Arambula, Bryan, Calderon, Wendy Carrillo, Dixon, Mike Fong, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Pellerin, Ta, Villapudua

ABS, ABST OR NV: Jim Patterson

UPDATED

VERSION: April 15, 2024

CONSULTANT: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 FN: 0002968

Date of Hearing: May 15, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2433

Author:(Quirk-Silva) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill allows a building permit applicant to employ a private professional provider to conduct plan-checking services and assess plans and specifications to ensure they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows an applicant for a building permit to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider (provider) to perform plan-checking services and ensure the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of the application within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.
2. Allows an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider to complete the inspection, if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five business days of receiving a request as part of the application for a building permit.
3. Requires a provider to perform plan-checking services or inspection to determine compliance with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
4. Requires, if the plans and specifications or the building complies with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code, the provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency, as specified.
5. Requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of the plan-checking services or inspection.
6. Requires, within 30 business days of receiving the report pursuant to 5, above, the local agency to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the building permit or deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.
7. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to the local appeals board.
8. Provides this bill does not apply to health facilities, public buildings, and highrise structures.
9. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. HCD anticipates an increase in requests for technical assistance within the State Housing Law Program. HCD indicates these costs are minor and absorbable.
2. State-mandated local costs of an unknown amount for local agencies to review reports received by private professional providers and to issue or deny a building permit within 30 business days of receiving the report. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. [This bill] aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.

1. Background. The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (Building Code), fire safety standards (Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The CBSC updates the California Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

According to Annual Progress Report (APR) data self-reported to HCD by local governments, it takes an average of 279 days for a housing development with five or more units to receive a building permit after it has received entitlement from the local planning department. Buildings with two to four units typically move from “entitled” to “permitted” within 223 days, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which have a statutory approval timeline of 60 days from a complete application, still take an average of 161 days to be issued building permits.

Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, upon the request of an applicant, when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the applicant’s plans and specifications. For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department has taken more than 30 days to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications.

This bill allows an applicant for a building permit to hire a provider to perform plan-checking services, and assess plans and specifications if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.

1. Arguments in Support. A large coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP California, state this bill “will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly.”
2. Arguments in Opposition. The Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the League of California Cities oppose this bill over concerns the bill removes government oversight in the permitting process, allowing approval or denial based only on a private third-party report, negating any involvement, oversight or independent verification or judgment of the facts by the local jurisdiction.

The California Building Officials (CALBO) write in opposition;

This bill undervalues the expertise of Building Departments by undermining their ability to see a plan through until the end. The members of CALBO are responsible for enforcing building code requirements in nearly all the buildings constructed in California. Inspectors are required to undergo a significant collection of documentation. It is unclear whether this requirement would carry over to third parties enabled by [this bill] to perform these tasks. It is also difficult to see how a department would create a course correction when they discover a third-party inspection left health and safety issues unresolved as there is no requirement to reissue a report and departments are not authorized to provide these orders.

1. Related Legislation. AB 3012 (Grayson), of this legislative session, requires a city or county that has an internet website to make a fee estimate tool that the public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing development project available on its internet website. AB 3012 is pending in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: May 8, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2433

Author:(Quirk-Silva) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill allows a building permit applicant to employ a private professional provider to conduct plan-checking services and assess plans and specifications to ensure they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.

Specifically, this bill:

1. Allows an applicant for a building permit to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider (provider) to perform plan-checking services and ensure the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of the application within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.
2. Allows an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider to complete the inspection, if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five business days of receiving a request as part of the application for a building permit.
3. Requires a provider to perform plan-checking services or inspection to determine compliance with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
4. Requires, if the plans and specifications or the building complies with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code, the provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency, as specified.
5. Requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of the plan-checking services or inspection.
6. Requires, within 30 business days of receiving the report pursuant to 5, above, the local agency to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the building permit or deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.
7. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit to the local appeals board.
8. Provides this bill does not apply to health facilities, public buildings, and highrise structures.
9. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. HCD anticipates an increase in requests for technical assistance within the State Housing Law Program. HCD indicates these costs are minor and absorbable.
2. State-mandated local costs of an unknown amount for local agencies to review reports received by private professional providers and to issue or deny a building permit within 30 business days of receiving the report. These costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates.

COMMENTS:

1. Purpose. According to the author:

Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. [This bill] aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.

1. Background. The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC). These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (Building Code), fire safety standards (Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The CBSC updates the California Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

According to Annual Progress Report (APR) data self-reported to HCD by local governments, it takes an average of 279 days for a housing development with five or more units to receive a building permit after it has received entitlement from the local planning department. Buildings with two to four units typically move from “entitled” to “permitted” within 223 days, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which have a statutory approval timeline of 60 days from a complete application, still take an average of 161 days to be issued building permits.

Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, upon the request of an applicant, when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the applicant’s plans and specifications. For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department has taken more than 30 days to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications.

This bill allows an applicant for a building permit to hire a provider to perform plan-checking services, and assess plans and specifications if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.

1. Arguments in Support. A large coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP California, state this bill “will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly.”
2. Arguments in Opposition. The Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the League of California Cities oppose this bill over concerns the bill removes government oversight in the permitting process, allowing approval or denial based only on a private third-party report, negating any involvement, oversight or independent verification or judgment of the facts by the local jurisdiction.

The California Building Officials (CALBO) write in opposition;

This bill undervalues the expertise of Building Departments by undermining their ability to see a plan through until the end. The members of CALBO are responsible for enforcing building code requirements in nearly all the buildings constructed in California. Inspectors are required to undergo a significant collection of documentation. It is unclear whether this requirement would carry over to third parties enabled by [this bill] to perform these tasks. It is also difficult to see how a department would create a course correction when they discover a third-party inspection left health and safety issues unresolved as there is no requirement to reissue a report and departments are not authorized to provide these orders.

1. Related Legislation. AB 3012 (Grayson), of this legislative session, requires a city or county that has an internet website to make a fee estimate tool that the public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing development project available on its internet website. AB 3012 is pending in this committee.

Analysis Prepared by: Jennifer Swenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 24, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

Christopher M. Ward, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2433 (

Author:Quirk-Silva) – As Amended Ver:April 15, 2024

SUBJECT: California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act: fees: building permits

SUMMARY: Allows an applicant for a building permit to employ a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services, assess plans and specifications, and complete building inspections if the local agency fails to perform these functions within specified timeframes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates the California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act.
2. Allows an applicant for a building permit to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider (provider) to perform plan-checking services and ensure that the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of the application within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit.
3. Allows an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider to complete the inspection, if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five business days of receiving a request as part of the application for a building permit.
4. Requires a provider to perform plan-checking services or inspection to determine compliance with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
5. Requires, if the plans and specifications or the building complies with the State Housing Law and the State Building Code, the provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating all of the following:
   1. The provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill; and
   2. The plans and specification or building complies with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
6. Requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of the plan-checking services or inspection. The report shall include both of the following:
   1. The affidavit described in 6), above; and
   2. Information required by the local agency.
7. Requires, within 30 business days of receiving the report pursuant to 7), the local agency to consider the report and based on the report, do either of the following:
   1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications or building and provider complies with State Housing Law or the State Building Code; and
   2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code if the plans and specifications, building, or provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code. The notice shall specify the requirements for the plans and specifications, building, or provider to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
8. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit pursuant to7)to the local appeals board.
9. Provides that this bill shall not apply to any of the following buildings:
   1. Health facilities;
   2. Public buildings; and
   3. Highrise structures.
10. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.
11. Provides the following terms for the purposes of this bill:
    1. “Health facility” has the same meaning as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code;
    2. “Highrise structure” means a building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access; and
    3. “Private professional provider” means a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or an architect licensed pursuant to the Architects Practice Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code).
12. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this bill creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including land use authority. (California Constitution, Article XI, Section 7)
2. Establishes the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) within the Department of General Services and requires CBSC to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. (Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 18930)
3. Establishes State Housing Law to assure the availability of affordable housing and uniform statewide code enforcement to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public and occupants of housing and accessory buildings. (HSC 17910)
4. Establishes the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which, among other things, establishes time limits within which state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits to entitle a development. (Government Code (GOV) Section 65920 - 65964.5)
5. Establishes standards and requirements for local agencies to review non-discretionary postentitlement phase permits, including time limits within which local agencies must either approve or disapprove postentitlement permits. (GOV 65913.3).
6. Allows the governing body of a local agency to authorize its enforcement agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, as specified. (HSC 17960.1, 19837)
7. Requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, upon the request of an applicant, for specified structures when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the plans and specifications that are submitted as a part of the application. (HSC 17960.1, 19837)
   1. For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after submitting a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. “Residential building” means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height. (HSC 17960.1)
   2. For a nonresidential permit for a building other than a hotel or motel that three stories or less, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of the local agency has taken more than 50 days after submitting a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. (HSC 19837)

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown.

COMMENTS:

Author’s Statement: According to the author, “efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. AB 2433 aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.”

State Housing Law and the State Building Code: State Housing Law establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law, and fees to defray the cost of enforcement required by the law to be carried out by local enforcement agencies.

The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the CBSC. These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (the Building Code), fire safety standards (the Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (the Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The BSC updates the Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. New construction and improvements to existing buildings must comply with the current building codes, and improvements to an existing building may trigger additional code upgrades for other parts of the building.

Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

Planning for and Approval of New Development: Planning for, and approving, new development is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority. Cities and counties enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations, as well as through an “entitlement process” for obtaining discretionary as well as ministerial approvals, and through the issuance of building permits.

The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA): The PSA requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development proposals. Under the PSA, public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete and request additional information; failure to act results in an application being “deemed complete.” The PSA applies to the discretionary approval phase of a development review process; this is the phase where the agency, in its discretion, decides whether it approves of the concept outlined in the development proposal.

Non-discretionary Postentitlement Permits: A development proposal that is approved and entitled by a local agency is still required to obtain approval for a range of non-discretionary permits. This includes building permits and other permits related to the physical construction of the development proposal. The timelines established in the PSA do not apply to these non-discretionary permits.

Essentially, the PSA applies to the discretionary approval phase of a development review process. This is the phase where the local agency, in its discretion, decides whether or not it approves of the concept outlined in the development proposal. Because the local agency is exercising discretion, these approval decisions are subject to CEQA. A development proposal that is approved and entitled by a local agency must also obtain approval of objective permits associated with the development proposal. This ensures the proposal is compliant with state and local building codes and other measures that protect public health, safety and the environment. This stage of the review process is often ministerial, as these post-entitlement permits are typically objective in nature. Generally, once a local agency invests the time and effort to approve and entitle a development proposal, there is an incentive for the agency to process the post-entitlement permits in a timely fashion.

Excessive Delays for Plan Checks: The California Department of Housing & Community Development (HCD) identifies lengthy permit processing timelines and procedures as a governmental constraint to housing development. According to Annual Progress Report (APR) data self-reported to HCD by local governments, it takes an average of 279 days for a housing development with five or more units to receive building permits after it has received entitlement from the local Planning Department.^[1] Buildings with 2-4 units typically move from “entitled” to “permitted” within 223 days, and accessory dwelling units (ADUs), which have a statutory approval timeline of 60 days from a complete application, still take an average of 161 days to be issued building permits.^[2] Some jurisdictions are much slower than the statewide average. For example, the average entitled development in San Francisco takes 699 days to receive a building permit.^[3]

In HCD’s San Francisco Housing Policy and Practice Review, the department found that procedural complexities associated with housing entitlement and permitting are “not only a barrier to entry to new development professionals pursuing [housing] projects,” but it may also cause developers to exit housing markets with complex permitting ecosystems and pursue developments in neighboring jurisdictions with less complex procedural requirements instead.^[4]

Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, upon the request of an applicant, when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the applicant’s plans and specifications. For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. In this instance, “residential building” means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height.

This bill would allow applicants for a building permit to hire a provider to perform plan-checking services, and assess plans and specifications to ensure they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 business days of receiving an application for a building permit. Applicants may do the same for a building inspection if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five business days of receiving a request for an inspection as part of the permit application. In doing so, this bill addresses a key governmental constraint associated with the housing production pipeline – the post-entitlement process.

This bill requires a provider to perform plan-checking services or inspections to determine compliance with State Housing Law and the State Building Code. If the plans and specifications or the building complies, the provider must prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating that the provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection and that they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.

This bill requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five business days of the completion of those services. The report must include the affidavit from the provider and information required by the local agency. Within business 30 days of receiving the report, the local agency must:

1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications or building and private professional provider complies with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.; and
2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code, if that is the case. The notice must specify the requirements for the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider to come into compliance. An applicant may appeal a denial to the local appeals board.

The building department of a city or county is also required to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.

This bill does not apply to health facilities, public buildings, or highrise structures.

Arguments in Support: A large coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP California, state, that this bill “will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly. AB 2433 proposes the implementation of flexible fee structures, expedited inspection timelines, and the conditional employment of private professional services. These measures are designed to enhance the speed and predictability of permit processing, alleviating the unnecessary burdens currently borne by project applicants, particularly those in small business sectors and entities working on affordable housing in underserved communities.

The bill’s emphasis on establishing definitive deadlines and permitting the sensible use of private professionals in the inspection process promises to cultivate a more streamlined, transparent, and conducive environment for growth and investment across California. Furthermore, AB 2433 thoughtfully ensures that critical safety and oversight measures remain uncompromised for major projects. We believe that the enactment of AB 2433 represents an essential step towards fostering a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable economic future for all Californians.”

Arguments in Opposition: The Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the League of California Cities write, “we understand the issue of lagging permitting times in some jurisdictions and would like to find a path to facilitating that needed construction, whether commercial or residential, in a reasonable amount of time. However, we do not believe that the solution put forth in AB 2433 adequately preserves a local jurisdiction’s ability and duty to enforce building related laws. AB 2433 allows an applicant for a construction project (large or small with the only exceptions being health facilities, high rises and public buildings) to pay a private third party to review plans and inspect the site, even if that is the same professional that designed the plans and works with (or for) the company. Even if the bill included an anti-collusion provision that disallowed services from professionals connected with a project, there is a clear financial incentive for the person paid by the applicant to do site review and inspection to render decisions favorable to applicant. Quite simply, directly paying the ‘regulator’ (a private individual in this case) to regulate you leads to biased results and creates a structure of deregulation.

Building inspection is an important step in the public safety process – there are many examples of unpermitted activities leading to catastrophic outcomes, such as 2016 Valley fire that killed four people and burned over 76,000 acres - all caused by an unpermitted hot tub electrical connection. We are concerned that as currently drafted, AB 2433 removes government oversight in the permitting process, allowing only approval or denial based on a private third-party report, negating any involvement, oversight or independent verification or judgment of the facts by the local jurisdiction.”

Related Legislation:

AB 3012 (Grayson). Would require a city or county that has an internet website to make a fee estimate tool that the public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing development project available on its internet website. AB 3012 is pending in this Committee.

AB 2234 (Robert Rivas), Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022. Required local agencies to process non-discretionary permits within 30 days for small housing development projects and 60 days for large housing development projects.

SB 423 (Wiener), Chapter 778, Statutes of 2023. Amended SB 35 (Wiener), which created a streamlined, ministerial local approvals process for housing development proposals in jurisdictions that have failed to produce sufficient housing to meet their RHNA. Local jurisdictions are required to complete their planning approvals process within 60 days for developments of less than or equal to 150 units, and 90 days for developments containing more than 150 units. City Agencies shall review subsequent permits to implement the approved development, and review of these permits shall not chill, inhibit, or preclude the development.

AB 2221 (Quirk-Silva), Chapter 650, Statutes of 2022. Required, among other provisions, all local agencies involved with reviewing ADUs, including planning departments and utility companies, to complete their review within 60 days of a complete application.

AB 2011 (Wicks), Chapter 647, Statutes of 2021. Created the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, creating a streamlined, ministerial local review and approvals process for certain affordable and mixed-use housing developments in commercial zoning districts and commercial corridors. A current bill, AB 2243 (Wicks) would amend AB 2011 to facilitate the conversion of office buildings to residential uses, among other provisions. Local jurisdictions are required to complete their planning approvals process within 60 days for developments of less than or equal to 150 units, and 90 days for developments containing more than 150 units. City Agencies shall review subsequent permits to implement the approved development, and review of these permits shall not chill, inhibit, or preclude the development.

Double referred: This bill is double-referred. It was heard in the Assembly on Local Government, and passed on a vote of 8-0 on April 10, 2024.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

NAIOP California (Sponsor)

Associated General Contractors

Bay Area Council

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Apartment Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturing Technology Association

El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce

El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce

Elk Grove Chamber of Commerce

Folsom Chamber of Commerce

Institute of Real Estate Management

Lincoln Area Chamber of Commerce

Rancho Cordova Area Chamber of Commerce

Rocklin Area Chamber of Commerce

Roseville Area Chamber of Commerce

Shingle Springs/Cameron Park Chamber of Commerce

UCAN Chambers of Commerce

United Chamber Advocacy Network

YIMBY Action

Yuba Sutter Chamber of Commerce

Opposition

California Building Officials

California Fire Chiefs Association

Fire Districts Association of California

Analysis Prepared by: Dori Ganetsos / H. & C.D. / (916) 319-2085

1. HCD APR Data Dashboard: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-open-data-tools/housing-element-implementation-and-apr-dashboard ↑

2. IBID. ↑

3. IBID. ↑

4. HCD San Francisco Policy & Practice Review, Page 13. Published October 2023. Accessed from: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/plans-and-reports ↑

Date of Hearing: April 10, 2024

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Juan Carrillo, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2433 (

Author:Quirk-Silva) – As Introduced Ver:February 13, 2024

SUBJECT: California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act: fees: building permits.

SUMMARY: Allows an applicant for a building permit to employ a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services, assess plans and specifications, and complete building inspections if the local agency fails to perform these functions within specified timeframes. Specifically, this bill:

1. Creates the California Private Permitting Review and Inspection Act.
2. Allows an applicant for a building permit to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services and assess the plans and specifications to ensure that the plans and specifications comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the plan-checking services related to the plans and specifications submitted as part of the application within 30 days of receiving an application for a building permit.
3. Allows an applicant to contract with or employ at the applicant’s own expense a private professional provider to complete the inspection to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five days of receiving from the applicant a request for an inspection as part of the application for a building permit.
4. Requires a local agency to create a list of recommended private professional providers and post the list on the local agency’s website.
5. Requires a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill to determine compliance with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
6. Requires, if the plans and specifications or the building complies with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, the private professional provider to prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating all of the following:
   1. The private professional provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill.
   2. The plans and specification or building complies with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
7. Requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five days of the completion of the plan-checking services or inspection. The report shall include both of the following:
   1. The affidavit described in 6), above.
   2. Information required by the local agency.
8. Requires, within 30 days of receiving the report pursuant to 7), above, the local agency to consider the report and, based on the report, do either of the following:
   1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications or building and private professional provider complies with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.
   2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code if the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code. The notice shall specify the requirements for the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider to comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.
9. Allows an applicant to appeal a denial of a building permit pursuant to 8), above, to the local appeals board.
10. Provides that this bill shall not apply to any of the following buildings:
    1. Health facilities.
    2. Public buildings.
    3. Highrise structures.
11. Requires the building department of a city, including a charter city, or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.
12. Provides the following terms for the purposes of this bill:
    1. “Health facility” has the same meaning as defined in Section 1250 of the Health and Safety Code.
    2. “Highrise structure” means a building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access.
    3. “Private professional provider” means a professional engineer licensed pursuant to the Professional Engineers Act (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 6700) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code) or an architect licensed pursuant to the Architects Practice Act (Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 5500) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code).
13. Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this bill or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this bill creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public, including land use authority. (California Constitution, Article XI, § 7)
2. Establishes the California Building Standards Commission (CBSC) within the Department of General Services and requires CBSC to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. [Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 18930]
3. Establishes the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA), which, among other things, establishes time limits within which state and local government agencies must either approve or disapprove permits to entitle a development. [Government Code (GOV) § 65920 - 65964.5]
4. Establishes standards and requirements for local agencies to review non-discretionary postentitlement phase permits, including time limits within which local agencies must either approve or disapprove postentitlement permits (GOV § 65913.3).
5. Allows the governing body of a local agency to authorize its enforcement agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions, as specified. (HSC § 17960.1 § 19837)
6. Requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions upon the request of an applicant for specified structures when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the plans and specifications that are submitted as a part of the application. (HSC § 17960.1 § 19837)
7. For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after submitting a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. “Residential building” means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height. (HSC § 17960.1)
8. For a nonresidential permit for a building other than a hotel or motel that three stories or less, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of the local agency has taken more than 50 days after submitting a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. (HSC § 19837)

FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal and contains a state-mandated local program.

COMMENTS:

1. Bill Summary. This bill allows applicants for a building permit to hire a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services, and assess plans and specifications to ensure they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code, if the local agency fails to perform these functions within 30 days of receiving an application for a building permit. Applicants may do the same for a building inspection if the local agency has not completed the inspection within five days of receiving a request for an inspection as part of the permit application.

This bill requires a private professional provider to perform plan-checking services or inspections to determine compliance with State Housing Law and the State Building Code. If the plans and specifications or the building complies, the private professional provider must prepare an affidavit under penalty of perjury on a form prescribed by the local agency stating that the private professional provider performed the plan-checking services or inspection and that they comply with State Housing Law and the State Building Code.

This bill requires the applicant to submit to the local agency a report of the plan-checking services or inspection pursuant to this bill within five days of the completion of those services. The report must include the affidavit from the private professional provider and information required by the local agency. Within 30 days of receiving the report, the local agency must:

• 1. Issue the building permit if the plans and specifications or building and private professional provider complies with State Housing Law or the State Building Code.
  2. Deny the building permit and notify the applicant in writing that the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider does not comply with State Housing Law or the State Building Code, if that is the case. The notice must specify the requirements for the plans and specifications, building, or private professional provider to come into compliance. An applicant may appeal a denial to the local appeals board.

This bill requires a local agency to create a list of recommended private professional providers and post the list on the local agency’s website. It also requires the building department of a city or county to prepare a schedule of fees and post the schedule on its internet website if the city or county prescribes fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized by State Housing Law.

This bill specifies that it does not apply to health facilities, public buildings, or highrise structures.

This bill is sponsored by NAIOP CA.

1. Author’s Statement. According to the author, “Efficiency is key for economic growth and effective governance. AB 2433 aims to cut through the red tape in the building permit process by setting reasonable, common-sense deadlines for plan-checking and inspections. It is all about keeping projects moving forward smoothly and providing relief to our local agencies facing challenges in timely permit processing. By making the permit process more efficient, we support our communities and businesses alike.”
2. Background. State Housing Law establishes statewide construction and occupancy standards for buildings used for human habitation. Existing law authorizes the governing body of a county or city to prescribe fees for permits, certificates, or other forms or documents required or authorized under the State Housing Law, and fees to defray the cost of enforcement required by the law to be carried out by local enforcement agencies.
3. Building Codes. The California Building Standards Code contains building standards and regulations as adopted by the BSC. These standards include, among other requirements, structural standards for building safety (the Building Code), fire safety standards (the Fire Code), energy efficiency standards (the Energy Code), and standards for green buildings (CalGreen).

The BSC updates the Building Standards Code on a three-year cycle—the BSC will publish new standards on or before July 1, 2022, that will go into effect on January 1, 2023. Once adopted at the state level, cities and counties in California then enact an ordinance to adopt the codes. New construction and improvements to existing buildings must comply with the current building codes, and improvements to an existing building may trigger additional code upgrades for other parts of the building.

Existing law requires the building department of every city or county to enforce the provisions of the State Housing Law, the California Building Standards Code, and the other specified rules and regulations promulgated pursuant to the State Housing Law.

1. Planning for and Approval of New Development. Planning for and approving new development is mainly a local responsibility. The California Constitution allows cities and counties to “make and enforce within its limits, all local, police, sanitary and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” It is from this fundamental power (commonly called the police power) that cities and counties derive their authority to regulate behavior to preserve the health, safety, and welfare of the public – including land use authority. Cities and counties enforce this land use authority through zoning regulations, as well as through an “entitlement process” for obtaining discretionary as well as ministerial approvals.

The scale of the proposed development, as well as the existing environmental setting determine the degree of local review that occurs. For larger developments, the local entitlement process commonly requires multiple discretionary decisions regarding the subdivision of land, environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), design review, and project review by the local agency’s legislative body (city council or county board) or by a planning commission delegated by the legislative body.

1. The Permit Streamlining Act. The PSA requires public agencies to act fairly and promptly on applications for development proposals. Under the PSA, public agencies have 30 days to determine whether applications for development projects are complete and request additional information; failure to act results in an application being “deemed complete.” The PSA applies to the discretionary approval phase of a development review process; this is the phase where the agency, in its discretion, decides whether it approves of the concept outlined in the development proposal.

1. Non-discretionary Postentitlement Permits. A development proposal that is approved and entitled by a local agency is still required to obtain approval for a range of non-discretionary permits. This includes building permits and other permits related to the physical construction of the development proposal. The timelines established in the PSA do not apply to these non-discretionary permits.

Essentially, the PSA applies to the discretionary approval phase of a development review process. This is the phase where the local agency, in its discretion, decides whether or not it approves of the concept outlined in the development proposal. Because the local agency is exercising discretion, these approval decisions are subject to CEQA. A development proposal that is approved and entitled by a local agency must also obtain approval of objective permits associated with the development proposal. This ensures the proposal is compliant with state and local building codes and other measures that protect public health, safety and the environment. This stage of the review process is often ministerial, as these postentitlement permits are typically objective in nature. Generally, once a local agency invests the time and effort to approve and entitle a development proposal, there is an incentive for the agency to process the postentitlement permits in a timely fashion.

1. Excessive Delays for Plan Checks. Existing law requires a local agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions upon the request of an applicant when there is an “excessive delay” in checking the applicant’s plans and specifications.

For a nonresidential permit for a building other than a hotel or motel that is three stories or less, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of the local agency has taken more than 50 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking.

For a residential building permit, “excessive delay” generally means the building department or building division of a local agency has taken more than 30 days after receiving a complete application to complete the structural building safety plan check of the applicant’s set of plans and specifications that are suitable for checking. “Residential building” means a one-to-four family detached structure not exceeding three stories in height.

1. Author’s Amendments. Due to timing constraints, the author has requested that the Committee adopt the following amendments:
   1. Change references in the timelines required by the bill to “business days.”
   2. Delete the provision requiring a local agency to create a list of recommended private professional providers and post the list on the agency’s website.
2. Related Legislation. AB 3012 (Grayson) requires a city or county that has an internet website to make a fee estimate tool that the public can use to calculate an estimate of fees and exactions for a proposed housing development project available on its internet website. AB 3012 is pending in this Committee.
3. Previous Legislation. AB 2234 (Robert Rivas), Chapter 651, Statutes of 2022, required local agencies to process non-discretionary permits within 30 days for small housing development projects and 60 days for large housing development projects.
4. Arguments in Support. A large coalition of supporters, including the sponsor of this bill, NAIOP CA, state, “The above organizations support AB 2433 (Quirk-Silva), legislation that will improve the efficiency of California's building permit process, which in coordination with local planning officials will enable an alternative plan process and allow economic and community development opportunities to come to fruition more quickly.

“AB 2433 proposes the implementation of flexible fee structures, expedited inspection timelines, and the conditional employment of private professional services. These measures are designed to enhance the speed and predictability of permit processing, alleviating the unnecessary burdens currently borne by project applicants, particularly those in small business sectors and entities working on affordable housing in underserved communities.

“The bill’s emphasis on establishing definitive deadlines and permitting the sensible use of private professionals in the inspection process promises to cultivate a more streamlined, transparent, and conducive environment for growth and investment across California. Furthermore, AB 2433 thoughtfully ensures that critical safety and oversight measures remain uncompromised for major projects. We believe that the enactment of AB 2433 represents an essential step towards fostering a more vibrant, equitable, and sustainable economic future for all Californians.”

1. Arguments in Opposition. The Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the League of California Cities write, “We understand the issue of lagging permitting times in some jurisdictions and would like to find a path to facilitating that needed construction, whether commercial or residential, in a reasonable amount of time. However, we do not believe that the solution put forth in AB 2433 adequately preserves a local jurisdiction’s ability and duty to enforce building related laws. AB 2433 allows an applicant for a construction project (large or small with the only exceptions being health facilities, high rises and public buildings) to pay a private third party to review plans and inspect the site, even if that is the same professional that designed the plans and works with (or for) the company. Even if the bill included an anti-collusion provision that disallowed services from professionals connected with a project, there is a clear financial incentive for the person paid by the applicant to do site review and inspection to render decisions favorable to applicant. Quite simply, directly paying the ‘regulator’ (a private individual in this case) to regulate you leads to biased results and creates a structure of deregulation.

“Building inspection is an important step in the public safety process – there are many examples of unpermitted activities leading to catastrophic outcomes, such as 2016 Valley fire that killed four people and burned over 76,000 acres - all caused by an unpermitted hot tub electrical connection. We are concerned that as currently drafted, AB 2433 removes government oversight in the permitting process, allowing only approval or denial based on a private third-party report, negating any involvement, oversight or independent verification or judgment of the facts by the local jurisdiction.

“To address concerns of slow permitting timelines in some jurisdictions, we suggest the bill is amended to allow for an expedited permitting process, similar to those that are already in place for other specific permits, such as broadband microtrenching permits or those in the air pollution permitting arena.”

1. Double-Referral. This bill is double-referred to the Housing and Community Development Committee.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

NAIOP California [SPONSOR]

Associated General Contractors

Bay Area Council

Building Owners and Managers Association of California

California Apartment Association

California Building Industry Association

California Business Properties Association

California Business Roundtable

California Chamber of Commerce

California Manufacturing Technology Association

Institute of Real Estate Management (IREM)

Ucan Chambers of Commerce

Yimby Action

Opposition

California Fire Chiefs Association

California State Association of Counties

Fire Districts Association of California

League of California Cities

Rural County Representatives of California

Urban Counties of California

Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958