Picture a typical Tuesday morning in a California building department.

Your plan-check queue is three weeks deep. One reviewer is on leave, another employee has just given notice, and the inspection calendar is already full. Then an applicant walks up to the counter and says the state has placed your department on a deadline. If you miss it, the applicant plans to hire a private professional to review the plans—and your department will have only a matter of days to respond.

That scenario is no longer theoretical.

California lawmakers are considering a group of bills that would place new deadlines, fee restrictions and procedural requirements on building departments. Taken together, they point toward a significant change in the relationship between local enforcement agencies and the state.

For decades, California generally set the building standards while local jurisdictions determined how to administer plan review, permitting and inspections. These proposals would move more of that administrative authority into state law. The common themes are unmistakable: statutory timelines, third-party reviewers, automated permits, remote inspections, limits on local fees and more stringent documentation requirements.

The podcast episode behind this article examines the practical effect of that shift from the perspective of the people working at permit counters, plan-check desks and construction sites every day.

Legislative update: The article below uses the most recent official bill text available as of July 15, 2026. Several bills were amended after the episode was recorded, so some deadlines and requirements differ from those discussed in the recording. These measures remain subject to further amendment. This article is educational commentary, not legal advice.

AB 2418: Private Plan Review for Certain Nonresidential Projects

AB 2418 is one of the clearest examples of California placing the local permitting process on a clock.

The bill applies to certain nonresidential tenant improvements in one- to three-story Group B buildings with an occupant load of no more than 49. The current Senate-amended version would require the city or county to give the applicant an estimated review timeframe after receiving a complete application.

The episode discussed an “excessive delay” threshold of more than 50 business days. The current bill text is more aggressive: it defines excessive delay for the initial structural building-safety plan check as more than 30 business days. It also addresses delays involving corrected plans and resubmittals.

When the department anticipates or experiences an excessive delay, the applicant may request that the jurisdiction contract with or temporarily employ a private reviewer. If the jurisdiction determines that no qualified provider is available, the applicant could hire a private professional provider at the applicant’s own expense.

That provider could not simply be anyone offering plan-review services. The current language generally requires a licensed architect or professional engineer with an acceptable plans-examiner certification and no financial interest in the permit or preparation of the plans. A local agency may also establish a list of qualified providers.

After the private provider submits the required affidavit and plan-check report, the city or county would have 10 business days to consider the report and either issue the permit or provide a written notice identifying the noncompliant requirements. The current bill also includes indemnification and public-entity immunity provisions related to permits issued through this process.

Why AB 2418 matters to building officials

The greatest operational risk may not be the use of private reviewers itself. Many departments already rely on consultants to handle fluctuations in workload. The difference is that AB 2418 would give the applicant a statutory path to an outside provider and impose a short local response period after that provider finishes the review.

Departments should begin tracking commercial plan-check performance by project type, review cycle and responsible department. The data should distinguish between time spent in the jurisdiction’s queue and time spent waiting for an applicant’s resubmittal.

That distinction matters. A project that takes three months from application to permit issuance is not necessarily a project that sat untouched for three months. It may have been returned several times because of incomplete plans, missing calculations or unresolved comments from fire, public works or environmental health. Accurate timestamps allow the department to demonstrate what actually occurred.

Building officials should also consider developing provider qualification standards, report formats, conflict-of-interest disclosures and an escalation procedure for the 10-business-day response window.

AB 2058: Factory-Built Housing Inspections and the 50% Fee Limit

AB 2058 addresses factory-built housing and would give the first user a choice between having the installation inspected by the local enforcement agency or by a qualified quality-assurance agency acting under the supervision of the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

If the applicant selects the outside quality-assurance agency, the applicant pays that agency’s cost, and the local enforcement agency may not charge an inspection fee for the same work.

When the local department performs the inspection, the bill generally limits the inspection fee to no more than 50% of the equivalent fee for nonfactory-built housing. It would impose a similar 50% limitation on permitting fees.

There is an important exception. A local agency could exceed the 50% limit if it adopts written findings through a resolution or ordinance and provides substantial evidence of the reasonable cost of performing the inspection or permit review. The bill also expressly preserves the local enforcement agency’s authority to issue or withhold a certificate of occupancy.

Why AB 2058 matters to building officials

The practical issue is cost recovery.

Permit and inspection fees fund plan reviewers, permit technicians, inspectors, vehicles, software, records management and other services. A fee cap that falls below the actual cost of providing those services does not eliminate the cost. It shifts the cost to the general fund, other permit customers or the department’s staffing level.

AB 2058 therefore makes a defensible cost-of-service study essential. Departments should identify exactly what remains within local scope for factory-built housing, including site preparation, foundations, utility connections, fire access, grading, zoning conditions and final occupancy review.

The findings required to exceed the cap cannot be based on a general belief that the fee is reasonable. They should be supported by documented staff time, labor rates, overhead allocation and the actual activities performed by the department.

AB 1738: Required Remote Inspection Options

AB 1738 would require many local agencies to offer remote inspections for specified work in one- and two-family dwellings.

This bill changed materially after the episode was recorded. The July 2 version is narrower than earlier proposals and moves implementation into 2028.

Under the latest language, covered projects include residential heat-pump water heaters, certain residential heat-pump HVAC systems, residential reroofs, qualifying photovoltaic and energy-storage systems, and smoke and carbon-monoxide detectors. A remote inspection could use live videoconferencing or recorded photos and videos, subject to the construction inspector’s direction.

Most covered jurisdictions would need to comply by January 1, 2028. Certain smaller qualifying cities would have until July 1, 2028. Cities with fewer than 5,000 residents and counties with fewer than 150,000 residents—including cities within those counties—would be exempt.

Importantly, the current bill allows local agencies to adopt technical protocols addressing image quality, camera coverage, proof of the project location and internet connectivity. It also preserves the inspector’s authority to terminate a remote inspection and require an in-person visit when compliance cannot be verified remotely. A homeowner or contractor who willfully misrepresents the work could be temporarily prohibited from using the remote option.

Why AB 1738 matters to building officials

Remote inspection is neither automatically unsafe nor automatically efficient. Its effectiveness depends on the type of work, the competence of the person operating the camera and the discipline of the inspector conducting the review.

A like-for-like water-heater replacement may be well suited to a remote inspection. A complicated structural connection, concealed installation or condition requiring physical testing may not be.

Every department should establish a written remote-inspection matrix that identifies eligible work, required documentation and conditions that trigger an in-person inspection. Inspectors should have unquestioned authority to end the remote process when they cannot see what they need to verify.

Records are equally important. Photos, videos, inspection notes, the identity of the person operating the camera and any limitations encountered during the inspection should be preserved in the permit record according to the jurisdiction’s records policy.

SB 222: Automated Heat-Pump Permits and Asynchronous Inspections

SB 222 focuses specifically on residential heat-pump water heaters and heat-pump HVAC systems.

Beginning July 1, 2027, the bill would require cities and counties to adopt and offer asynchronous inspections for qualifying installations. Asynchronous inspection means the licensed contractor and building inspector do not have to be physically or virtually present at the same time.

By July 1, 2028, covered jurisdictions would also have to implement an online, automated process that issues permits in real time for qualifying swap-outs. The automated pathway would apply where the work does not require a new electrical panel or structural work. For a heat-pump HVAC installation, the contractor would certify under penalty of perjury that an acceptable load calculation was performed and would provide that calculation to the authority having jurisdiction upon request.

SB 222 would generally limit permit fees to $150 for a residential heat-pump water heater and $200 for a residential heat-pump HVAC system. A jurisdiction could charge more only after adopting written findings supported by substantial evidence of its reasonable cost. The fee would have to be fixed by appliance type and publicly listed.

The bill also prohibits permits and inspections for certain self-contained, plug-in window air conditioners or heat pumps rated at 120 volts or less, provided the installation does not require a dedicated circuit, panel upgrade, drainage work or structural modification. Several requirements do not apply to cities with fewer than 5,000 residents or counties with fewer than 150,000 residents. New residential construction is outside the bill’s scope.

Why SB 222 matters to building officials

SB 222 is not simply a procedural change. It is an information-technology, finance, inspection and quality-control project.

A department cannot create a reliable real-time permit by converting its existing PDF application into an online form. It must define objective eligibility criteria, build automated rejection rules and identify conditions that require conventional review. Panel replacements, structural alterations, nonstandard installations and incomplete contractor certifications must be routed correctly.

Building officials should also consider how the department will verify contractor-supplied load calculations. Automation should remove unnecessary waiting from routine work, but it should not prevent the AHJ from auditing calculations, tracking failure rates or identifying contractors who repeatedly submit inaccurate information.

The technology discussion belongs in current budget and procurement planning—not in the month before the statutory deadline.

AB 1693: Accelerated Retail Tenant-Improvement Review

AB 1693 would create an expedited process for tenant improvements associated with retail businesses.

At the applicant’s request and expense, a qualified professional certifier could attest that the plans comply with applicable building, health and safety codes. The certifier would have to be a licensed architect or professional engineer with at least five years of commercial building design or plan-review experience and at least $2 million in professional liability insurance.

The local building department would have 20 business days after receiving a complete application to approve or deny it. If the application is denied and corrected plans are submitted, subsequent review would generally be limited to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, with a 10-business-day decision period.

The current version also requires departments to audit at least 20% of certified tenant-improvement submissions each week. Audits would begin within five business days after permit issuance. Local agencies could establish additional registration, training, fee and disciplinary requirements for professional certifiers, provided those requirements do not effectively prohibit use of the program.

An earlier provision that would have deemed a plan approved when the department missed the 20-day deadline has been removed from the current bill text. Construction inspections would still be required.

Why AB 1693 matters to building officials

Retail tenant improvements can have serious accessibility, egress, fire-resistance, structural and occupant-load implications. Speeding up the process cannot mean treating every interior remodel as low risk.

The immediate administrative challenge will be defining a “complete application.” A vague completeness standard invites disputes about when the 20-day clock began.

Departments will also need a certifier-registration system, a random-audit method, a process for recording deficient certifications and a clear policy for escalating repeated noncompliance to the appropriate licensing board.

The best outcome is faster review with the same life-safety standards—not a choice between speed and safety.

AB 1621: Limits on Review Cycles and Field Changes

AB 1621 applies to postentitlement permits for housing development projects and could significantly affect both plan review and field inspection.

The current bill would generally prohibit a local or state agency from requiring more than two plan-check and specification reviews for a building-permit application. After two reviews, the agency could deny an application that remains noncompliant, while the applicant could choose to make additional submissions.

The bill would also restrict an inspector from requiring a field action that deviates from an approved building plan unless the agency prepares written findings, supported by substantial evidence, showing either that a reasonable person could not interpret the approved plan as code compliant or that the deviation is necessary to address a specific adverse effect on public health or safety.

AB 1621 would shorten certain appeal periods to 30 business days for projects with 25 units or fewer and 45 business days for projects with 26 units or more. Under specified circumstances, an applicant could seek a writ of mandate to compel approval. Violations by a local agency could also be treated as violations of the Housing Accountability Act.

Why AB 1621 matters to building officials

This proposal reaches directly into one of the most important functions of an experienced field inspector: recognizing a dangerous condition that was not obvious on a two-dimensional plan.

At the same time, contractors have a legitimate expectation that an approved plan means something. Requiring expensive field changes based on an inspector’s personal preference, rather than a code provision or documented safety issue, undermines that expectation.

The operational answer is not to eliminate field judgment. It is to make that judgment defensible.

When a deviation from approved plans is necessary, the inspector should identify the applicable code section, describe the actual site condition, explain the health or safety impact, photograph the condition and document why the approved detail cannot be accepted. Significant calls should receive prompt supervisory review.

The standard taught to every new inspector remains valuable: Is this a code requirement, a manufacturer’s requirement or merely a personal preference?

Beyond the Bills: Proposition 45 and the Broader Shift

The same policy approach is also appearing outside the Legislature.

The proposal promoted as the Building an Affordable California Act is officially listed on the November 3, 2026 ballot as Proposition 45, “Modifies Environmental Review for Certain Projects.” It would expedite California Environmental Quality Act review for specified categories of housing, transportation, water, health and clean-energy projects. The measure would establish agency deadlines and limit aspects of project-alternative analysis and court review.

Proposition 45 is not a building-code bill, but building officials should pay attention to its underlying philosophy: government agencies receive a defined period to act, and missing that period carries consequences.

That is the same philosophy running through the permit bills—deadlines, private alternatives, automated pathways and reduced local discretion over process.

What Building Departments Should Do Now

These proposals may be amended, enacted, defeated or carried into future legislation. Waiting for the final outcome, however, is not a strategy. Building departments can prepare for the direction of travel without assuming every provision will become law.

1. Measure actual turnaround times

Track intake, completeness review, first comments, applicant resubmittals, interdepartmental review, permit issuance and inspections separately. Do not rely on anecdotes or a single overall processing-time number.

2. Update cost-of-service information

Document what each permit and inspection type actually costs. Include direct labor, supervision, technology, vehicles, records, administrative support and appropriate overhead. This evidence may determine whether a department can lawfully exceed a statutory fee limit.

3. Establish third-party review governance

Develop qualification standards, conflict disclosures, required report formats, insurance requirements, quality audits and a process for removing deficient providers from an approved list.

4. Adopt a remote-inspection policy

Identify eligible inspections, minimum image and video requirements, proof-of-location procedures, documentation standards and mandatory in-person triggers. Train inspectors in directing remote inspections rather than assuming traditional field skills automatically transfer to video.

5. Map the technology gap

Determine whether the current permitting platform can support automated issuance, electronic signatures, contractor certifications, photo and video records, audit selection and real-time reporting. Procurement, integration and testing frequently take longer than the policy discussion anticipates.

6. Strengthen documentation at every stage

Correction notices should be complete and code based. Fee findings should be supported by cost data. Remote inspections should leave a usable record. Field changes should identify the approved detail, actual condition, governing requirement and safety basis.

The Clock Is Coming for the Counter

California’s building departments are being asked to deliver permits and inspections faster while continuing to protect life, safety and accessibility. Those goals do not have to be mutually exclusive, but achieving both requires more than a statutory deadline.

It requires adequate staffing, reliable technology, qualified third-party professionals, accurate applications and disciplined documentation.

Building officials should resist the instinct to treat every reform proposal as an attack on the profession. Some of these bills are responding to real delays and inconsistent practices. At the same time, lawmakers should understand that a faster process cannot be built by simply shortening a deadline or capping a fee without accounting for staffing, technology, liability and the complexity of the work.

The strongest position for a building department is not, “Leave us alone.”

It is: “We understand the objective. We know our numbers. We can show our work. Here is what is necessary to implement the change without sacrificing public safety.”

The clock is coming for the permit counter. The departments that prepare now will not have to choose between speed and safety when it arrives.