SB 1383 requires local and state agencies to publish detailed checklists and sample approved applications for postentitlement phase permits for housing projects, and to make those materials available online. The bill limits what agencies may require from applicants to items on those published lists and prevents retroactive application of revised checklists to pending permits.
The bill also imposes firm procedural deadlines: agencies must decide completeness within 15 business days and then finish their substantive review within statutorily defined business-day windows (30 days for projects of 25 units or fewer; 60 days for projects of 26 units or more). Failure to meet certain agency timelines triggers statutory consequences, including deemed completeness or deemed approval for state agency permits, while appeal windows and tolling rules define how disputes and external reviews are handled.
The statute sunsets on January 1, 2028.
At a Glance
What It Does
Defines “postentitlement phase permit,” requires agencies to publish required application items and sample files online, limits agency requests to published items, and sets fixed review and appeal deadlines with statutory consequences for missed deadlines. It also authorizes tolling for external reviews and narrow exceptions for documented public health or safety impacts.
Who It Affects
City and county planning and building departments, California state permitting agencies, developers of housing projects that are at least two‑thirds residential, design and permitting consultants, and third‑party reviewers used by agencies (e.g., environmental or utility reviewers). Small jurisdictions and outside reviewers will see process and workload changes.
Why It Matters
The bill replaces ad hoc, document-by-document intake with published checklists and example permits to reduce ambiguity and chase requests. By adding deemed-complete and deemed-approved triggers and fixed appeal deadlines, it shifts timing risk toward agencies and formally caps permit-processing uncertainty for housing projects — a material change for project scheduling and financing.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 1383 forces agencies to be explicit about what they will ask for when a developer seeks building and related permits after entitlements are complete. Local and state agencies must compile detailed lists of required application items and post examples of a complete approved application and a complete set of postentitlement permits on their websites; local agencies must provide examples for at least five project types (for example, accessory dwelling units, duplexes, multifamily, mixed‑use, and townhomes).
Agencies may update their lists, but any revision cannot be applied to permits already pending review.
When an applicant files for a postentitlement phase permit, the agency has 15 business days to say whether the filing is complete. If the agency says the application is incomplete, it must give a limited, itemized list of deficiencies and explain how to cure them — and that list can only include items from the agency’s own published checklist.
Applicants can fix and resubmit; the agency must treat the resubmission as a new completeness review under the same 15‑business‑day rule. If the agency misses the 15‑day window, the application is automatically deemed complete under this statute.Once an application is deemed complete, the bill creates firm windows for substantive review: 30 business days for housing projects with 25 units or fewer, and 60 business days for projects with 26 or more units.
Within those windows the agency either issues the requested postentitlement permits or returns a full set of written comments describing required revisions. The agency must notify the applicant promptly by email and, where applicable, post the response online in the format required by cross‑referenced law.
If the agency declares the postentitlement permits compliant, it cannot subject those permits to further appeals or additional hearings under this section.The statute allows two narrow exceptions that extend time: a written finding based on substantial evidence that the proposal may have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, and tolling while an outside reviewer completes its work (with the agency required to notify the applicant within three business days of tolling). The bill also creates appeal procedures with fixed decision windows (60 business days for projects of 25 units or fewer; 90 business days for larger projects) and attaches different consequences for missed deadlines — notably, state agency failures result in deemed approval, while local agency failures are a violation of an existing enforcement provision.
The law excludes certain state permits (for example, some federal Clean Water Act or Safe Drinking Water Act delegated permits), Coastal Commission permits, and permits from special districts or non‑local utilities. Finally, the section expires on January 1, 2028.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Local agencies must post example approved applications and complete permit sets for at least five housing project types, including accessory dwelling units, duplexes, multifamily, mixed‑use, and townhomes.
If an agency revises its published checklist, the revised list cannot be applied to any permit application that is already pending review.
An agency’s notice that an application is incomplete must be limited to items that appear on the agency’s own published checklist; agencies cannot require new items not on that list during cure reviews.
Once a postentitlement phase permit is found compliant under the statute, the agency may not subject that permit to any additional appeals or hearing requirements under this section.
The entire section is temporary: it remains in effect only until January 1, 2028, at which point it is repealed.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Published checklists and example permit files
This provision requires agencies to compile detailed lists of required materials and to post a complete, approved application and a complete set of postentitlement permits online. Local agencies must include examples for at least five housing project types. Agencies may revise lists but cannot apply revisions to applications already pending. Practically, this forces agencies to standardize intake documents and creates a public baseline that applicants and reviewers can rely on.
Completeness determination and cure process
Agencies must issue a written determination of completeness within 15 business days. If incomplete, the agency must return a focused list of missing items and instructions for cure, and the applicant can resubmit. The statute limits what can be requested during cure to items on the published checklist, narrowing agencies’ ability to expand requirements midstream and reducing surprise document requests that delay projects.
Review deadlines, communication, and exceptions
This section sets the substantive review clocks: 30 business days for projects with 25 units or fewer and 60 business days for larger projects. Agencies must send determinations promptly by email and may post them online. The text allows written findings to extend time for specific, adverse public health or safety impacts and tolls the clock when outside reviews are required, subject to a three‑business‑day notice to the applicant. These mechanics prioritize speed while preserving a narrow path for additional scrutiny when clear safety standards justify it.
Appeals and final determination windows
Applicants can appeal incomplete, noncompliant, or denied determinations to the agency’s governing body or director (cities/counties may permit planning commissions to hear appeals). Appeals must be resolved within set timeframes — 60 business days for smaller projects and 90 business days for larger — and the statute makes clear that permitting appeals to multiple bodies does not extend those deadlines. That constrains discretionary post‑approval review and limits protracted administrative appeals.
Scope, exclusions, and sunset
The bill defines “postentitlement phase permit” broadly to include building permits, demolition, grading, and Title 24 permits for construction of projects that are at least two‑thirds residential, while carving out certain state and federal delegated permits, Coastal Commission permits, special districts, and non‑local utilities. It also permits local agencies to set and adopt by ordinance thresholds for what constitutes a ‘minor’ permit. Critically, the whole section expires on January 1, 2028, making this a temporary statutory regime rather than a permanent overhaul.
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 and mid‑sized housing developers — gain predictability from published checklists and strict review clocks, which can reduce financing and scheduling risk.
- Project lenders and equity investors — benefit from reduced uncertainty about post‑entitlement approvals and clearer timelines that support financing covenants and construction schedules.
- Development consultants and permit expeditors — can standardize deliverables and reduce iterative information exchanges, making their work more efficient and scalable.
- Applicants pursuing concurrent approvals — get a constrained administrative calendar and clearer rules for cure and resubmission that reduce the risk of open‑ended agency requests.
- Communities seeking faster housing delivery — may see reduced administrative delay for construction starts if agencies meet the statutory timelines.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local planning and building departments — face added administrative work to create and continuously maintain published checklists, example files, and online systems, plus potential liability under Section 65589.5 for missed deadlines.
- State permitting agencies — carry exposure to automatic deemed approval consequences if they miss timelines, shifting legal and reputational risk to state staff and counsel.
- Outside technical reviewers and special districts — will be pressed to meet agency turnaround expectations or trigger tolling mechanics, potentially creating pressure to accept expedited review contracts.
- Low‑capacity jurisdictions (small cities/counties) — may need to hire staff or consultants to comply with posting, notice, and timing rules, imposing unfunded costs.
- Opponents of specific projects (neighbors, local groups) — may find reduced opportunities to raise procedural objections after an agency issues a compliance determination, potentially shrinking avenues to delay or modify projects.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is speed versus safeguard: SB 1383 trades administrative certainty and faster starts to construction for the risk that time‑forced reviews will miss substantive problems or push agencies toward deemed approvals. Policymakers must balance the public interest in accelerating housing delivery against the need to preserve adequate technical, environmental, and public‑safety review — a trade‑off the statute attempts to manage with narrow exceptions and tolling but cannot fully eliminate.
The bill pushes speed and clarity but raises implementation and enforcement questions. Agencies must produce and keep current detailed checklists and example permit files; smaller jurisdictions with limited staff could struggle to meet that requirement or to perform timely completeness determinations and reviews, creating a practical risk of deemed approvals or statutory violations.
The statute gives agencies a narrow safety valve — a written finding of a “specific, adverse impact” on public health or safety — but the required substantial‑evidence standard and the definition terms may invite legal disputes about whether an agency lawfully extended a timeline.
Deemed approvals and the differing remedies for state and local agencies create asymmetrical incentives. A state agency’s missed deadline yields an automatic approval; a local agency’s missed deadline is characterized as a violation of Section 65589.5 (an enforcement vehicle whose remedies and practical effects differ).
That asymmetry could encourage strategic behavior (e.g., routing reviews across agency types) or litigated claims about whether procedural missteps should void downstream approvals. Additionally, the bill’s broad definition of postentitlement permits coupled with carve‑outs (Coastal Commission, certain federal‑delegated permits, special districts) leaves room for disagreement over what is covered, and the local‑threshold mechanism for “minor” permits requires each jurisdiction to create an ordinance and written findings, adding complexity and potential inconsistency across counties and cities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.