California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Passed Assembly 1 D cosponsors

AB 660 — Planning and Zoning Law: postentitlement phase permits: Housing Accountability Act.

Last action — In committee: Held under submission.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. ✓
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 14, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.

Next likely step: consideration and a floor vote in the Senate.

Prognosis

Advancing 48% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Moderate

How often bills like it became law.

  • Passed Assembly

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 7 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency, as defined, to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time limits. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the local agency, as specified. This bill would prohibit the local agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency before the local agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to notify the applicant, within 3 business days of the start of the tolling and within 3 business days of the resumption of the time limit, of the tolling and the resumption of the time limit, respectively. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) 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 a specified reason.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. In committee: Held under submission.

  2. In committee: Referred to suspense file.

  3. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  4. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 9. Noes 0.) (July 15).

  5. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on HOUSING.

  6. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HOUSING. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (July 2).

  7. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  8. Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and HOUSING.

  9. In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

  10. Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 2056.)

  11. Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

  12. Coauthors revised.

  13. From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 23).

  14. In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

  15. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (April 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  16. Re-referred to Com. on H. & C.D.

  17. Read second time and amended.

  18. From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on H. & C.D. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 23).

  19. Assembly Rule 56 suspended. (Page 1163.)

  20. (Pending re-refer to Com. on H. & C. D.)

  21. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  22. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  23. Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.

  24. Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and H. & C.D.

  25. From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. Read second time and amended.

  26. From printer. May be heard in committee March 17.

  27. Read first time. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Passed 9 Yea · 0 Nay · 2 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8001
Republican 1001
Total 9002
% of votes cast 82%0%0%18%
How each member voted (11)
Member Party Vote
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Not Voting
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Cortese, Dave Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Gonzalez, Lena A. Democratic Yea
Grayson, Timothy S. Democratic Yea
Padilla, Stephen C. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Ochoa Bogh, Rosilicie Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 6 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 1001
Democratic 5000
Total 6001
% of votes cast 86%0%0%14%
How each member voted (7)
Member Party Vote
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Cabaldon, Christopher Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Choi, Steven S. Republican Yea
Seyarto, Kelly Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 76 Yea · 0 Nay · 3 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Republican 19000
Democratic 56003
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 76003
% of votes cast 96%0%0%4%
How each member voted (79)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Addis, Dawn Democratic Yea
Aguiar-Curry, Cecilia M. Democratic Yea
Ahrens, Patrick Democratic Yea
Alvarez, David Democratic Yea
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Bains, Jasmeet Democratic Yea
Bauer-Kahan, Rebecca Democratic Yea
Bennett, Steve Democratic Yea
Berman, Marc Democratic Yea
Boerner, Tasha Democratic Yea
Bonta, Mia Democratic Yea
Bryan, Isaac G. Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Connolly, Damon Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
Gabriel, Jesse Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Gipson, Mike A. Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Harabedian, John Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Not Voting
Irwin, Jacqui Democratic Yea
Jackson, Corey A. Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Krell, Maggy Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Lowenthal, Josh Democratic Yea
McKinnor, Tina Democratic Yea
Muratsuchi, Al Democratic Yea
Nguyen, Stephanie Democratic Yea
Ortega, Liz Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Papan, Diane Democratic Not Voting
Patel, Darshana R. Democratic Not Voting
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Petrie-Norris, Cottie Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rivas, Robert Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Celeste Democratic Yea
Rodriguez, Michelle Democratic Yea
Rogers, Chris Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Schiavo, Pilar Democratic Yea
Schultz, Nick Democratic Yea
Sharp-Collins, LaShae Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Soria, Esmeralda Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Valencia, Avelino Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Zbur, Rick Chavez Democratic Yea
Alanis, Juan Republican Yea
Castillo, Leticia Republican Yea
Chen, Phillip Republican Yea
Davies, Laurie Republican Yea
DeMaio, Carl Republican Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Ellis, Stan Republican Yea
Flora, Heath Republican Yea
Gallagher, James Republican Yea
Gonzalez, Jeff Republican Yea
Hadwick, Heather Republican Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Lackey, Tom Republican Yea
Macedo, Alexandra Republican Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea
Wallis, Greg Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Do pass.

Passed 14 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 3001
Total 14001
% of votes cast 93%0%0%7%
How each member voted (15)
Member Party Vote
Arambula, Joaquin Democratic Yea
Calderon, Lisa Democratic Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Elhawary, Sade Democratic Yea
Fong, Mike Democratic Yea
González, Mark Democratic Yea
Hart, Gregg Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Pellerin, Gail Democratic Yea
Solache, Jr., José Luis Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Dixon, Diane Republican Yea
Sanchez, Kate Republican Not Voting
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Passed 11 Yea · 0 Nay · 1 Other
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Republican 2001
Unaffiliated 1000
Total 11001
% of votes cast 92%0%0%8%
How each member voted (12)
Member Party Vote
Ávila Farías — Yea
Caloza, Jessica Democratic Yea
Garcia, Robert Democratic Yea
Haney, Matt Democratic Yea
Kalra, Ash Democratic Yea
Lee, Alex Democratic Yea
Quirk-Silva, Sharon Democratic Yea
Wicks, Buffy Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Patterson, Joe Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea
Tangipa, David J. Republican Not Voting

Official roll call →

Passed 10 Yea · 0 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 8000
Republican 2000
Total 10000
% of votes cast 100%0%0%0%
How each member voted (10)
Member Party Vote
Carrillo, Juan Democratic Yea
Pacheco, Blanca Democratic Yea
Ramos, James C. Democratic Yea
Ransom, Rhodesia Democratic Yea
Rubio, Blanca E. Democratic Yea
Stefani, Catherine Democratic Yea
Ward, Christopher M. Democratic Yea
Wilson, Lori D. Democratic Yea
Hoover, Josh Republican Yea
Ta, Tri Republican Yea

Official roll call →

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does AB 660 do?
(1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a local agency, as defined, to compile one or more lists that specify in detail the information required from any applicant for a postentitlement phase permit, as defined. Existing law also establishes time limits for completing reviews regarding whether an application for a postentitlement phase permit is complete and compliant, and whether to approve or deny an application. If a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, existing law requires the local agency to provide the applicant with a list of items that are noncompliant and a description of how the application can be remedied by the applicant within specified time limits. Existing law requires the time limits to be tolled, if the local agency requires review of the application by an outside entity, until the outside entity completes the review and returns the application to the local agency, as specified. This bill would prohibit the local agency from requiring or requesting more than 2 plan check and specification reviews in connection with an application for a building permit, as part of its review, except as specified. The bill would authorize a local agency to deny an application that is not compliant with the permit standards following 2 plan check and specification reviews. The bill would also authorize an applicant to request additional submittals of applications that are not compliant with the permit standards. The bill, if a local agency finds that a complete application is noncompliant, would prohibit a local agency from requesting or requiring any action or inaction as a result of a building inspection undertaken to assess compliance with the applicable building permit standards that would represent a deviation from a previously approved building plan or similar approval for the building permit, except as specified. This bill would remove the above-described tolling requirements relating to outside entity reviews and, instead, would require, if federal or state law requires review of the application by another public agency that is independent of the local agency before the local agency is authorized to act on the application, the time limits to be tolled for the application until the public agency completes the review and returns the application to the local agency. The bill would require the local agency to notify the applicant, within 3 business days of the start of the tolling and within 3 business days of the resumption of the time limit, of the tolling and the resumption of the time limit, respectively. (2) Existing law, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, requires a local agency to provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision in writing to the governing body of the agency or, if there is no governing body, to the director of the agency, as provided by that agency. Existing law requires the city or county to provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. Existing law requires a local agency to provide a final written determination on the appeal not later than 60 business days after receipt of the applicant's written appeal, for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer, and not later than 90 business days for a housing development projects with 26 units or more. Existing law also specifies that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. This bill would revise those timelines to not later than 30 business days for housing development projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for housing development projects with 26 units or more. The bill would remove the specification that the fact that an appeal is permitted to both the planning commission and to the governing body does not extend the specified time period. The bill would remove the requirement that, if a postentitlement phase permit is determined to be incomplete or noncompliant, a local agency provide a process for an applicant to appeal that decision to the director of the agency if there is no governing body, as provided by that agency. The bill would remove the requirement that a city or county provide that the right of appeal is to the governing body or, at their option, the planning commission, or both. This bill would authorize the applicant to seek a writ of mandate to compel approval of the application, if the applicant's appeal is denied, or a decision on the appeal is not made within the timelines provided, or an appeals process is not provided as required. By imposing additional duties on local agencies regarding postentitlement phase permits, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (3) Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, prohibits a local agency from disapproving, or conditioning approval in a manner that renders infeasible, a housing development project for very low, low-, or moderate-income households unless the local agency makes written findings as to one of certain sets of conditions, as specified. The act also requires, when a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, that the local agency base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that 2 specified conditions exist. Existing law defines the term "disapprove the housing development project" for these purposes to include any instance in which a local agency takes certain actions or fails to comply with certain requirements, including the time limits described above. Existing law makes a local agency's failure to meet the above-described time limits relating to postentitlement phase permits a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. This bill would, instead, make a violation of the above-described provisions relating to postentitlement phase permits, among others, a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. The bill would also revise the definition of "disapprove the housing development project" under the Housing Accountability Act to include any instance in which a local agency fails to comply with any of the provisions described above relating to postentitlement phase permits. By requiring local agencies to take certain actions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (4) The bill would make other conforming changes and would provide that certain changes are declaratory of existing law. (5) The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. (6) 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 a specified reason.
Who sponsors AB 660?
AB 660 is sponsored by Wilson, Lori D. (Democratic).
What is the current status of AB 660?
This bill has passed the Assembly. Introduced February 14, 2025. It now moves to the second chamber.
Where can I track AB 660?
Track AB 660 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 660

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 660

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →