Dan J. Harkey

Master Educator | Business & Finance Consultant | Mentor

AB-920 and California’s Digital Pivot: Centralized Permit Portals for Housing Development- Technical Read

by Dan J. Harkey

Share This Article

Summary:

California’s housing shortage isn’t just a problem of land, labor, or capitalism; it’s also a problem of process.  Local approval pathways for housing can be slow, fragmented, and opaque, creating friction that cascades into higher project carrying costs, missed production targets, and ultimately fewer homes delivered.  Assembly Bill 920 (Caloza)—the Permit Streamlining Act: Housing Development Projects—addresses this friction with a deceptively simple mandate: large cities and counties must establish online portals where housing applicants can submit, monitor, and track their permits in one location.  As of 4 September 2025, AB 920 has been enrolled and presented to the Governor, after clearing both chambers with unanimous floor votes—positioning California for a statewide digital reset in how local governments intake and communicate on housing permits.

What AB 920 Requires (and What It Doesn’t)

AB 920 adds Government Code §65940.3, requiring any city or county with a population of 150,000 or more (and an internet website) to provide a centralized application portal for housing development projects.  At a minimum, the portal must (1) accept electronic applications and (2) allow real-time status tracking of where an application sits in the review process.  Crucially, the statute does not require the portal to display the status of permits or inspections controlled by another local agency, a state agency, or a utility provider—an essential boundary on local responsibility.  

The bill treats the portal requirement as a statewide concern that applies to all cities, including charter cities (cities with a charter that acts as a local constitution), preempting contrary local rules.  This is consistent with the Legislature’s recent pattern of declaring housing process reforms to be statewide in scope.  Additionally, AB 920 stipulates that no state reimbursement is required for the mandated program, as local agencies have the necessary fee authority to cover implementation costs.

Timelines and Compliance Windows

Under the enrolled version, covered jurisdictions must launch their portals by 1 January 2028.  A conditional extension to 1 January 2030 is available if the city or county formally initiates procurement and takes specified actions by 1 January 2028—a practical off-ramp for large agencies that need more time to select and integrate software. ,

The legislative History underscores the bill’s velocity: it was introduced on February 19, 2025, passed the Assembly 75–0 on May 19, 2025, cleared the Senate 37–0 on August 25, 2025, and was enrolled on September 4, 2025.  Those votes signal broad bipartisan acceptance that digitizing intake and status reporting is now a table-stakes requirement for public-sector service delivery.

Why a Centralized Portal?  Policy Logic

The Legislature’s committee analyses are blunt: phone calls, emails, and window visits cannot scale to today’s application volumes.  A centralized portal injects transparency (where is my permit?), predictability (what is needed, and when?), and accountability (which desk holds the baton?).  This is intended to address process opacity—one of the most frequently cited non-financial drags on housing production timelines.  The introduction of a centralized portal is a significant step towards a more efficient and transparent housing approval process, offering hope for improved timelines and increased accountability.

Beyond California, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that digital permitting compresses timelines by double-digit percentages.  The Institute for Responsive Government cites examples where online systems cut approval times by 70% and collapse multi-week processes into a single day—the kind of step-function efficiency gains that, scaled across California’s larger jurisdictions, could materially affect project pro formas and delivery dates.  While those data points come from other states, AB 920 is expressly designed to unlock similar benefits here.

How AB 920 Fits into California’s Broader Streamlining Architecture

AB 920 doesn’t operate in a vacuum.  It builds upon existing streamlining and transparency laws—notably the Permit Streamlining Act (deadlines for approving/disapproving projects), the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330) (limits on post-application “moving the goalposts”), and the suite of Housing Accountability Act clarifications that encourage agencies to adopt objective, predictable standards.  Together, these rules have been tightening the rails of local entitlement practice; AB 920 extends that modernization to the front-end digital experience.

The Assembly Local Government Committee analysis explicitly ties AB 920 to this family of reforms, noting existing duties to post fee schedules, development standards, and checklists online, and that the Mitigation Fee Act and SB 330 already constrain ad hoc information demands during the process.  The new portal requirement is the missing interface that unifies intake, visibility, and status communication for applicants.

Stakeholders and Support

Abundant Housing LA sponsored AB 920, arguing that uniform, transparent tech is a first-order lever for speeding approvals and reducing the administrative overhead borne by builders and public staff.  The bill sailed through committees on consent with no recorded opposition in key Senate stops—an indicator that digitizing workflows is one of the few remaining bipartisan “easy wins” in housing policy.  The broad bipartisan support for AB 920 is a strong indicator of its potential success and the shared belief in the benefits of digitizing workflows in housing policy.

External civic-tech advocates framed AB 920 as an upgrade to the customer experience for government, citing national satisfaction data and emphasizing the role of real-time status updates in rebuilding trust.  While framed generally for permitting—not just housing—their analysis helped situate AB 920 within a broader movement toward responsive digital government.  The emphasis on real-time status updates in the analysis of AB 920 underscores the importance of transparency in rebuilding trust in the housing approval process.  

Status as of Today

As of 11 October 2025, authoritative trackers indicate that AB 920 has been enrolled and presented to the Governor (as of 4 September 2025).  Some bill‑tracking sites flag it as part of the housing acceleration package signed in October, but the official public record in our sources still lists the last formal action as enrollment.  Until the Governor’s Office or the Legislature posts a chaptered (signed) notice, treat the bill as awaiting final disposition.

Editor’s note: If AB 920 is signed and chaptered, its statutory requirements (Gov. Code § 65940.3) would become operative according to the bill’s timelines above; if vetoed, expect a re-run with similar architecture, given the unanimity recorded in both chambers.

Practical Implications for Local Governments

1) Scope and coverage.  If your jurisdiction’s population is ≥150,000, you are in the mandate zone.  The portal must be accessible via your existing website and support end-to-end electronic submission and status tracking for housing development projects as defined in state Law (the bill cross-references existing statutory definitions).  

2) Procurement strategy and timeline.  Jurisdictions have until 1 January 2028, with a potential extension to 1 January 2030, if they initiate procurement and take specified actions by the earlier date.  Agencies should sequence needs assessments, RFPs, vendor evaluations (ePermitting suites such as Accela/Tyler/OpenGov or custom builds), and integration planning, including plan check, inspections, GIS, and payments.  The extension clause exists to recognize the complexity of the objective world’s procurement; use it judiciously.  

3) Coordination boundaries.  While the portal must show application status, cities are not required to display the status of permits/inspections under other agencies (e.g., fire districts, utilities).  That boundary reduces interagency dependency risk—but it also means jurisdictions should design UX that clearly distinguishes city-controlled milestones from external ones to avoid applicant confusion. ,

4) Cost recovery and budgeting.  The Legislature declined to appropriate state funds or mandate reimbursement, citing its authority over local fees and taxes.  Agencies will likely rely on cost-of-service fees, technology surcharges, or modernization reserves.  Ensure compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act for all cost allocations and maintain robust administrative records.  

Practical Implications for Builders, Lenders, and Housing Advocates

Developers should expect a single front door and less black-box lag—with more precise lines of sight to what is pending and who is responsible.  While AB 920 doesn’t change substantive standards or grant approvals by default, the process transparency can compress the “unknown‑unknowns” that often inflate soft costs and delay debt/equity deployments.

Lenders and capital partners can integrate portal milestone tracking into underwriting and draw condition checklists, reducing reliance on anecdotal evidence and email trails.  In markets with long entitlement queues, this visibility can be particularly valuable for bridge lending and construction loan monitoring, where timing risk is a dominant concern.

Advocates gain a tool to monitor whether jurisdictions are meeting statutory timelines under the existing Permit Streamlining Act, HAA, and SB 330—with the portal functioning as a contemporaneous log of progression through the pipeline.  Public-facing status also increases political accountability for bottlenecks.  

Where the Friction Will Live

Even with a clean portal, cross-agency dependencies remain—utilities, fire departments, school districts, and state regulatory reviews can still extend timelines.  AB 920 does not compel those outside entities to expose their status in the city’s portal.  Expect version‑one portals to show a mix of green checkmarks (city steps) and “external pending” markers—better than today’s opacity, but not a silver bullet.  

There’s also the technology adoption curve inside city halls.  Standing up software is easy compared to re-engineering workflows, updating checklists to match objective standards, and training staff to work in the open.  The bill’s supporters emphasize transparency as a route to trust; detractors (quietly) worry about increased scrutiny revealing process debt.  The trajectory of the consent calendar in the Senate suggests that even skeptics see the administrative upside as outweighing the exposure risk.  

Governance, Preemption, and Legal Exposure

By declaring itself a statewide concern, AB 920 lands on firm preemption ground against local ordinances that would frustrate its purpose.  This mirrors the Legislature’s approach in HAA and SB 330 contexts, where courts have repeatedly upheld state housing laws against charter city defenses.  For city attorneys, the primary risk is non-compliance after the operative deadlines, which can lead to mandamus actions or enforcement leverage in related disputes.

Because the statute relies on local fee authority instead of state reimbursement, expect debates over cost recovery.  Agencies should tie portal costs to documented service improvements and guard against fee challenges by maintaining transparent cost methodologies and public findings.  The Assembly analysis explicitly flags this financing posture.

Implementation Playbook for Localities (A 12–18 Month Roadmap)

·         Inventory and gap analysis (60–90 days).  Map every touchpoint in the housing permit journey—pre-submittal checklists, plan review, corrections, inspections, and fee payment—and identify what’s digitized versus paper-bound.  Anchor this to existing online posting obligations to prevent redundancy.

·       Platform selection (90–150 days).  Evaluate COTS (commercial off-the-shelf) ePermitting suites versus configurable low-code layers.  Prioritize API openness, workflow engine flexibility, and role-based transparency features for public vs. staff views.  The extension clause to 2030 hinges on initiating procurement by 2028—don’t wait.  

·       Data model and integrations (concurrent).  Define a canonical application data schema that aligns with PSA/HAA/SB 330 required elements and your posted checklists.  Integrate with GIS, plan review, inspections, and payments to avoid swivel‑chair data entry.  Committee analyses repeatedly emphasize standardized, objective, posted requirements—reflect these in your submission forms.  

·       Status taxonomy and SLA clocks.  Translate internal steps into plain English statuses with target time frames that align with statutory requirements.  This is where the portal can become a compliance ally for PSA deadlines and SB 330’s “no moving target” rules.  

·       Public comms and training (ongoing).  Roll out applicant guides, FAQs, and intake clinics.  Train staff not just on software, but also on service standards—the cultural shift is as significant as the code itself.  External advocates frame this as customer experience; lean into that framing to build buy-in.  

Developer Readiness Checklist

  • Map your entitlement path against the portal’s stages; pre‑assemble required objective‑standard materials to avoid “incomplete” loops.
  • Instrument your schedule: tie loan covenants and equity gates to portal milestones (submittal deemed complete, first correction cycle, approval issued, inspections scheduled).   
  • Track external dependencies (e.g., utilities) in a parallel log; AB 920 may not surface those statuses inside the city portal.  

Measuring Success: What Good Looks Like

Success isn’t just “a portal exists.” It’s shorter cycle times, fewer incomplete submittals, demonstrably lower staff touches per application, and publicly visible SLA adherence on the portal’s dashboard.  Expect watchdogs to benchmark performance once portals are live, much like they track housing element compliance and HAA outcomes today.  The Legislature’s consent calendar posture and the sponsor’s advocacy suggest that performance transparency is the endgame.

Civic‑tech advocates will also focus on customer satisfaction—an area where California has lagged.  If AB 920’s model follows early adopters elsewhere, jurisdictions can convert multi-week handoffs into single-day or single-session resolutions for straightforward permits, freeing staff time for more complex projects.  That’s the productivity dividend California needs to hit its production targets.

Bottom Line

AB 920 won’t solve zoning fights, environmental review complexity, or construction cost inflation.  However, it does address something squarely within the government’s control: how applicants interact with the local state.  For developers, lenders, and advocates seeking predictability, the centralized portal represents an overdue modernization that should reduce friction and shed light on the critical path.  For local governments, it’s both a compliance requirement and an opportunity to rebuild trust with constituents through visible, trackable service.  With unanimous votes and strong advocacy, the political will is there; the next challenge is execution.  

Citations / Further Reading