Note: This is the fourth update in our series covering AB 130 and SB 131, two bills that work substantive changes to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and California housing law. Click here to learn more about other recent updates in these bills.
The recently enacted budget bill—AB 130 (2025)—introduces various amendments to the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code sections 65920, et seq., “PSA”), which aim to expedite the processing of permits for the development of projects across California. The PSA requires agencies to establish clear application requirements for development projects and sets forth specified time limits for agencies to review applications and approve or disapprove permits.
AB 130 makes permanent the preliminary application process laid out in SB 330 (2019), which was set to expire on Jan. 1, 2030. It also makes important changes to the PSA designed to streamline application processing as follows.
Removal of Public Notice Requirement Prior to Approval: Under the PSA, if an agency failed to meet certain process timelines, a project would be “deemed approved” as long as the “public notice required by law” had occurred or the agency had held at least one public hearing. See Mahon v. County of San Mateo (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 812, 821-824; Linovitz v. California Coastal Commission (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1106, 1121-1125. Applicants could provide the public notice if the agency failed to do so, however, the public notice requirement generally gave agencies that had missed the PSA deadlines a final opportunity to hold a public hearing to make a decision on the project before it was “deemed approved.”
AB 130 removes this public notice requirement. Now, a project application is deemed approved if a public agency does not approve or disapprove of a project within the deadlines laid out in the PSA, which range from 30 to 180 days from the completion of environmental review under CEQA. Project applicants can leverage AB 1633 to force a lead agency to make a determination as to the level of environmental review for a project, such as an exemption, to trigger these new PSA deadlines.
Although AB 130 makes an exciting change for developers that may benefit from faster approvals and reduced procedural hurdles, the change may conflict with longstanding legal precedent that neighbors have due process rights to public notice and hearing on land use decisions that substantially affects their property rights. See Horn v. County of Ventura (1979) 24 Cal.3d 605, 612-616. These PSA changes invite a showdown between applicants and NIMBYs (or local agencies) over whether AB 130’s changes violate neighbors’ procedural due process rights.
Broadens Application of the PSA to Ministerial Projects: AB 130 expands the scope of the PSA to include “ministerial” (i.e., not involving the exercise of subjective judgment by a public official) housing development project applications. AB 130 reinforces that agencies must approve or deny a ministerial application within 30 days of the application being deemed complete, unless a shorter deadline applies under applicable law.
Tight Deadlines for Qualifying CEQA-Exempt Infill Housing Development Projects: To support the new statutory exemption for infill housing projects (described in a recent client alert, available here), AB 130 expedites approval of infill housing development projects that meet the criteria in Public Resources Code section 21080.66. Agencies now must approve or deny qualifying projects within 30 days of the conclusion of the specified tribal consultation process.
California Coastal Commission Subject to PSA Timelines as a Responsible Agency:
Previously, the California Coastal Commission was not subject to the PSA’s deadlines for acting on development projects when it was a responsible agency. Under AB 130, the California Coastal Commission is now subject to the same permitting deadlines as other state and local agencies, removing a long-standing exemption that allowed the commission to operate outside of the PSA timelines.
