Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act

The law limits building-permit plan checks, shortens appeal deadlines, and restricts agencies from changing approved plans during inspection without written justification. It gives applicants stronger remedies when permit processing rules are not followed.

What the law does ​

• Limits local and state agencies to two plan-check and specification reviews for a building-permit application, while allowing denial after the second review and additional resubmittals at the applicant’s request.
• Requires agencies to identify noncompliant items and explain how to fix them within existing permit-review deadlines.
• Bars inspection-driven demands that depart from an approved building plan unless written findings show the plan could not reasonably be read as compliant or the change is needed for a specific health or safety impact.
• Tolls permit-review deadlines only when federal or state law requires review by an independent public agency, and requires notice to the applicant when tolling starts and ends.
• Shortens written appeal decisions to 30 business days for projects of 25 or fewer units and 45 business days for projects of 26 or more units.
• Allows an applicant to seek a court order compelling approval if an appeal is denied, late, or unavailable.
• Treats a local agency’s violation of these postentitlement permit rules as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act; state-agency violations result in deemed permit approval and completed related reviews.

Who it affects ​

• Housing developers and applicants seeking building permits or other postentitlement permits for residential and qualifying mixed-use projects.
• Cities, counties, charter cities, and state agencies processing postentitlement permits.
• Residents seeking housing in projects delayed by post-approval permit processing.

Breakdown ​

Building Permit Review Limits ​

This part limits how many plan-check and specification reviews a local or state agency can require for a building permit application. It also narrows when permit-review deadlines can be paused and protects approved building plans from being changed through inspection demands, with limited exceptions.

Key takeaways

• A local or state agency may require or request no more than two plan-check and specification reviews for a building permit application.
• After two reviews, an agency may deny an application that still does not meet the permit standards.
• An applicant may ask to submit additional revisions even if the application remains noncompliant after the two reviews.
• If a complete application is found noncompliant, an agency generally may not use a building inspection to demand changes that depart from the previously approved building plans or similar permit approval.
• Permit-review deadlines may be paused only when federal or state law requires review by an independent public agency before the local or state agency can act.
• The local or state agency must notify the applicant when the review deadlines are paused for a required independent-agency review.

Faster Permit Appeal Decisions ​

The bill shortens the deadlines for agencies to decide appeals over postentitlement permit applications found incomplete or noncompliant. It also lets applicants ask a court to order approval when an appeal is denied, not decided on time, or when the required appeal process is not provided. The bill removes certain rules specifying which agency officials or bodies must hear these appeals.

Key takeaways

• Agencies must issue a final written appeal decision within 30 business days for housing projects with 25 or fewer units, down from 60 business days.
• Agencies must issue a final written appeal decision within 45 business days for housing projects with 26 or more units, down from 90 business days.
• The bill removes requirements that appeals go to an agency director when there is no governing body or, for cities and counties, to specified governing bodies or planning commissions.
• The bill removes the provision stating that appeals to both a planning commission and governing body do not extend the decision deadline.
• An applicant may seek a court order compelling approval if the appeal is denied, no timely decision is made, or the required appeal process is not provided.
• The bill creates additional duties for local agencies, resulting in a state-mandated local program.

Postentitlement Permit Enforcement ​

AB 1621 makes a local agency’s failure to follow the bill’s postentitlement phase permit requirements a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. It also expands the Act’s definition of disapproving a housing project to include failing to comply with those permit requirements. The bill requires local agencies to carry out these duties, creating a state-mandated local program.

Key takeaways

• A local agency’s failure to comply with postentitlement phase permit requirements is treated as a violation of the Housing Accountability Act.
• The bill expands the definition of disapproving a housing development project to include failures to meet the postentitlement phase permit provisions.
• This change gives housing projects protections under the Housing Accountability Act when a local agency does not follow the required postentitlement permit rules.
• The bill imposes required actions on local agencies and therefore creates a state-mandated local program.

Conforming Changes and Clarifications ​

The bill makes additional technical changes to align related laws with its new rules. It also states that some of its changes confirm what existing law already means, rather than create new requirements.

Key takeaways

• The bill makes related technical changes to keep the law consistent.
• Some provisions are declared to reflect existing law rather than establish new law.
• The digest does not identify which specific changes are declaratory of existing law.

Statewide Application ​

The bill declares that its changes address a statewide concern, not only local municipal matters. As a result, the bill applies to every California city, including charter cities.

Key takeaways

• The bill makes findings that its subject matter is a statewide concern.
• The bill states that its provisions are not limited by a city’s authority over municipal affairs.
• The bill applies to all California cities, including charter cities.

Conditional SB 1072 Changes ​

This part adds further changes to Government Code Section 65589.5 that were proposed by SB 1072. Those added changes take effect only if both AB 1621 and SB 1072 become law and AB 1621 is enacted after SB 1072.

Key takeaways

• The bill conditionally incorporates additional amendments to Government Code Section 65589.5 proposed by SB 1072.
• The additional amendments apply only if both AB 1621 and SB 1072 are enacted.
• AB 1621 must be enacted last for these additional changes to become operative.

No State Reimbursement Required ​

The bill states that the state does not have to reimburse local agencies or school districts for costs created by this act. It gives a specified reason for that conclusion under the state reimbursement rules.

Key takeaways

• The bill says no state reimbursement is required for costs resulting from this act.
• California generally reimburses certain state-mandated local costs, but the bill makes an exception here.
• The digest indicates that the bill relies on a specified reason to deny reimbursement.