AB 748 directs every California city, county, and city–county to establish a program that accepts, reviews, and posts preapproved single‑family and small multifamily residential plans. Projects that deploy an eligible preapproved plan must receive ministerial approval rather than discretionary review, shortening the local entitlement process.
The bill aims to standardize common housing designs, reduce delays caused by discretionary land‑use review, and create a public repository of preapproved plans. For developers, designers, and local planners this changes where risk, timing, and documentation obligations sit during the permitting process; for local agencies it creates new administrative duties and reporting responsibilities.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires local agencies to accept submissions for preapproval, make preapproved plans publicly available online, and treat applications that use eligible preapproved plans as ministerial. A completed application that uses a qualifying preapproved plan must be approved or denied on a non‑discretionary basis within a fixed 30‑day window when the site conditions match the plan’s design parameters.
Who It Affects
Cities, counties, and city–counties (including charter cities) must stand up programs; homebuilders, small‑scale multifamily developers, architects, and plan vendors will be the primary private‑sector users. Local planning, building, and permitting staff will face new intake, posting, and reporting workflows.
Why It Matters
By removing discretionary review for conforming projects, the measure could speed approvals and reduce negotiation over design details for many small residential projects. It also creates a new publicly searchable inventory of ready‑to‑use plans, shifting some permit risk from entitlement to site‑compatibility checks and code compliance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 748 sets up a predictable path for repeating residential designs. Local agencies must create a program that takes plan submissions for single‑family and small multifamily buildings; those plans, if accepted, are made available on the agency’s website so others can reuse them.
Applicants who submit plans for preapproval must certify they have the authority to do so, and the agency may treat the preapproval submission similarly to a normal permitting review, including charging the same fees it would for a comparable unit.
When a permit applicant uses a plan that the agency has preapproved (or uses a plan identical to a previously approved design), the local agency cannot impose discretionary land‑use review; it must evaluate the application on objective, ministerial grounds. That ministerial check focuses on whether the particular lot matches the plan’s intended soil conditions, topography, flood zone, zoning, and design standards.
If the application is complete and the site is compatible, the agency has a limited period to act.The program is designed to be flexible: agencies may admit plans they developed in‑house and may choose to allow preapproved plans at higher densities or in additional zones when they wish. The statute also draws a clear line for large master‑planned developments and planned unit developments, excluding them from the program so the rule targets smaller, repeatable home construction rather than subdivision‑scale planning.AB 748 builds in two tiers for implementation and oversight: larger jurisdictions begin reporting program usage earlier, smaller jurisdictions receive a delayed applicability date and later reporting start.
The law defines the scale of eligible multifamily projects and expressly applies to charter cities, preventing local charter status from creating an exemption.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Local agencies must establish their preapproval program by July 1, 2027.
A local agency must approve or deny a completed application that uses an eligible preapproved plan within 30 days when the lot matches the plan’s soil, topography, flood, zoning, and design parameters.
Preapproved plans must be posted on the local agency’s website with the applicant’s contact information, and the agency is not responsible for the accuracy of that contact info; applicants can request removal and the agency must take the plan down within 30 days of that request.
The statute excludes plans intended for master‑planned communities, planned unit developments, or similar large‑scale subdivision projects, and it defines 'multifamily' as buildings with 2 to 10 units.
Reporting: large jurisdictions must report units approved using preapproved plans beginning April 1, 2028; small jurisdictions begin reporting on April 1, 2030, and the law does not apply to small jurisdictions until January 1, 2029.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Program requirement, intake, and preapproval process
This subsection imposes a development deadline for local preapproval programs and obliges agencies to accept single‑family and small multifamily plan submissions. It requires agencies to approve or deny preapproval applications under existing state and local standards and permits agencies to charge the same permitting fees they would for a comparable unit — effectively allowing cost‑recovery for reviewing preapproval submissions. Practically, this sets up a front‑end review track that mirrors normal plan review but creates an asset (the preapproved plan) that other applicants can reuse.
Public posting, contact information, and removal
Preapproved plans must be posted on the agency’s website and accompanied by the applicant’s contact information as provided. The statute makes two administrative choices here: it disclaims any agency endorsement or responsibility for the accuracy of contact details, and it gives the submitting applicant the unilateral right to request removal, which the agency must honor within 30 days. Those rules control public visibility and liability exposure while leaving data‑quality duties with the private submitter.
Agency‑admitted plans and optional expansion of scope
Local agencies may admit plans they themselves have developed and preapproved into the program, but they are not compelled to post plans they did not receive from an applicant. The subsection also preserves local discretion to include higher‑density plans or to expand eligible zoning districts voluntarily — a safety valve that lets agencies pilot more permissive options without mandating them statewide.
Scope limits and ministerial approval standard
The bill excludes large‑scale, subdivision‑oriented developments such as master‑planned communities and PUDs. For eligible small projects that use preapproved plans (or identical plans previously approved), the agency must process permit applications ministerially rather than through discretionary review. The ministerial check is narrowly focused on objective site compatibility (soil, topography, flood zone, zoning, and the design standards tied to the plan) and includes a firm deadline for action once a completed application is filed.
Reporting, staggered applicability, definitions, and charter city coverage
The statute phases in reporting and applicability between large and small jurisdictions, prescribes what counts as a large versus small jurisdiction (population thresholds tied to January 1, 2019 figures), and defines multifamily as 2–10 units. It also contains an express constitutional finding that housing is a statewide concern, making the section applicable to charter cities — closing a common avenue for local non‑coverage.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Housing across all five countries.
Explore Housing in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small‑scale developers and builders: They gain predictable, ministerial approval routes for repeatable designs, reducing entitlement time and the uncertainty and cost of discretionary hearings.
- Architects and plan vendors who supply preapproved designs: A posted, public inventory creates a market for repeatable plans and increases reuse of existing designs.
- Permitting staff in high‑demand jurisdictions: Agencies can standardize reviews for common building types, potentially reducing backlogs for projects that fit preapproved templates.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local agencies (cities and counties): They must create and operate intake, review, posting, and reporting workflows by statutory deadlines, which requires staffing and system changes even if some costs are recoverable through fees.
- Local design‑review bodies and community groups: The shift to ministerial approval for conforming projects reduces opportunities for discretionary input on design and location, limiting local influence.
- Applicants who submit plans without authority or with incorrect contact details: While the agency disclaims liability for posted contact info, plan submitters carry reputational and business risk and must manage removal requests and ongoing accuracy.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between speed and site specificity: the bill accelerates permits for repeatable housing designs by removing discretionary review, but it must rely on sometimes difficult, technical site checks and new local administrative capacity to ensure those preapproved designs work on specific lots — a trade‑off between faster, standardized approvals and the risk that shortcutting discretionary review transfers technical and financial burdens elsewhere.
AB 748 balances faster, predictable approvals against site‑specific compatibility checks and new administrative burdens. One operational tension is verification: the law requires agencies to confirm that a lot matches a plan’s intended soil, topography, flood zone, zoning, and design standards before granting ministerial approval, but it does not prescribe detailed inspection protocols or who bears the upfront cost of specialized site condition assessments (e.g., geotechnical reports).
That ambiguity could shift delay and expense to applicants or require agencies to create new checklist procedures and training.
Another implementation tight spot is public posting and contact information. Requiring a public repository improves transparency and reuse, but the statute disclaims agency responsibility for contact accuracy while giving applicants unilateral removal rights.
Those choices reduce agency liability at the cost of potential marketplace friction: users relying on posted plans may contact the listed party and find outdated information, creating disputes that the statute leaves largely to private resolution. Finally, the fee rule permits agencies to charge the same fees they would for a comparable unit, but it does not provide startup funding for jurisdictions to build the online systems or staffing required, which could produce uneven implementation across jurisdictions and affect equity in access to the program.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.