Share this episode of Takis Talk
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
Connect at TakisTalk.com
