An act to amend Section 6775 of, and to add Section 5586.5 to, the Business and Professions Code, to add Chapter 14 (commencing with Section 66345) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, and to amend Section 114380 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to restaurants.
AB 671 creates a streamlined, expedited permitting process for tenant improvements to restaurants. It allows an applicant, at the applicant’s expense, to use a “qualified professional certifier” — a licensed architect or engineer with at least five years of commercial design or plan-review experience and $2 million in professional liability insurance — to certify that plans comply with applicable building, health, and safety codes. Local building departments must approve or deny a complete application within 20 business days, and if they do not act in time, the plan is deemed approved for permitting purposes. If an application is denied, the applicant may resubmit corrected plans, and the agency’s review of each resubmission is limited to the original deficiencies, with a 10-business-day turnaround for each subsequent review.
The bill also adds an audit and accountability structure. Local building departments must randomly audit at least 20 percent of tenant improvements submitted each week under the certification process, begin audits within five business days after permit issuance, and issue correction notices if audits reveal material noncompliance. Qualified professional certifiers are subject to liability for damages caused by negligent plan review, and false statements in certifications become grounds for discipline by the California Architects Board or the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists. Cities and counties may impose additional registration, training, fee, and penalty requirements on certifiers, including decertification or administrative fines for willful noncompliance or repeated certification of noncompliant plans.
AB 671 also amends the California Retail Food Code to create a parallel expedited process for restaurant tenant improvement plans submitted to local health enforcement agencies. Those agencies must act within 20 business days on a complete plan, with deemed approval if they miss the deadline, and must review corrected resubmissions within 10 business days. The bill expressly preserves other mandatory inspections, such as fire, health, and structural inspections, and excludes projects already subject to Retail Food Code plan review requirements from the new Government Code chapter. It further states that to the extent the streamlined process applies to discretionary approvals, those projects are exempt from CEQA, and it declares the subject matter to be one of statewide concern so the law applies to charter cities as well.
The bill’s impact on state law is to shift part of the restaurant tenant-improvement plan-check burden from local agencies to licensed private professionals, while imposing firm statutory deadlines on local review. It changes the Business and Professions Code by adding discipline provisions for false certification statements, adds a new Government Code chapter governing accelerated restaurant building plan approval, and amends the Health and Safety Code’s food-facility plan review section to incorporate the expedited process for restaurant tenant improvements. It also limits public-entity liability for permit issuance or denial decisions under the new chapter and requires applicants to indemnify local agencies for property damage or personal injury arising from permitted construction.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text and voting history is strongly favorable. The Legislature’s findings frame the measure as a pro-small-business, pro-economic-development response to delays that can burden independent restaurants, immigrant entrepreneurs, and family-owned businesses. The recorded votes were unanimous at each listed stage, suggesting broad bipartisan support and little visible opposition in committee or on the floor.
The main points of contention, as reflected in the structure of the bill rather than recorded debate, are the tradeoff between speed and local oversight, and the allocation of risk. Local governments retain audit authority and can add requirements, but they lose some control over initial plan review timelines and face deemed approval if deadlines are missed. In addition, the bill places liability on private certifiers and indemnification obligations on applicants, while limiting public-entity liability, which may raise concerns about enforcement, accountability, and whether local agencies can adequately protect public health and safety under the accelerated process.
AB 671 amends the Business and Professions Code, Government Code, and Health and Safety Code to create a new expedited permitting framework for restaurant tenant improvements. It authorizes certified private architects and engineers to substitute for some local plan review functions, imposes mandatory review deadlines and deemed-approval rules, adds audit requirements, and creates disciplinary consequences for false certifications. It also narrows local and public-entity exposure to liability, allows local governments to add implementation requirements, and extends the streamlined process statewide, including to charter cities. The bill further creates a CEQA exemption to the extent the new process applies to ministerial or otherwise streamlined approvals.
The bill appears to have been received positively overall, with its findings emphasizing support for small restaurants, tourism, agriculture, and economic development. The voting record provided shows unanimous approval at every listed committee and floor stage, with no recorded nays, indicating strong legislative consensus. There is no committee transcript in the provided materials showing organized opposition or significant amendment-driven controversy.
The central policy tension is between faster restaurant buildout approvals and the preservation of local building and health oversight. Supporters’ rationale is that private professional certifiers can relieve municipal bottlenecks without sacrificing safety, while critics might worry that deemed approval, limited resubmission review, and reduced public-entity liability could weaken local control or create enforcement gaps. Another likely point of concern is risk allocation: the bill places liability on certifiers and indemnification on applicants, which may be viewed as necessary accountability by supporters but as a burden or deterrent by opponents. The bill also preserves local audit authority and health inspections, suggesting an attempt to balance speed with safeguards.