CA AB 2418
enactedLocal building permits: nonresidential private permitting review.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower
Subscribe in a feed reader. The feed covers recorded actions from the last 30 days; Bill Commons may record an action after it happened at the legislature.
Quick answers
Did CA AB 2418 pass?
Yes. CA AB 2418 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-30): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 828, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA AB 2418 about?
Existing law requires every city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, demolition, or repair of any building or structure, to require the execution of a permit application, as specified. Existing law permits a local agency, defined as a city, county, or city and county, to authorize its enforcement agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions for a nonresidential building, but the local agency is not required to do so if it determines that no entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services. Under existing law, when there is an excessive delay, as defined, in checking plans submitted as part of an application for specified nonresidential projects, a local agency is required to, upon request of the applicant, contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform the plan-checking function. Existing law defines "excessive delay" to mean, among other things, the local agency has taken more than 50 days to check plans and specifications, as provided. This bill would, until January 1, 2032, revise and recast the above-described provisions related to private plan checking. The bill would, upon receipt of a complete application for a nonresidential building permit, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which it will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. This bill would require the local agency to, upon an applicant's request, contract with or employ a private plan-checking entity if the estimated timeframe would result in an excessive delay or if there is excessive delay by the local agency. The bill would prohibit a local agency from reducing, eliminating, or failing to fill budgeted civil service positions within the building department as a result of the use of private professional providers, as provided. If the local agency determines no private entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services, the bill would authorize the applicant to retain, at their sole expense, a private professional provider, as specified. The bill would shorten the timeframe constituting an "excessive delay" from 50 days to 30 business days. This bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. This bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit, as provided, or notify the applicant that, according to the report prepared by the private professional provider, the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt requirements that limit the size of an eligible nonresidential building, as provided, or specify the eligible types of businesses or occupancy, provided that the requirements do not prohibit or effectively prohibit the use of a private professional provider as authorized by the bill. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, existing law imposes liability upon the public entity for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill would, notwithstanding existing public entity liability provisions, grant a public entity immunity from liability for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any nonresidential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. The bill would require the applicant to enter into an agreement to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the local agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the local agency or its agents, officers, or employees relating to any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Existing law permits the governing body of any county or city, including a charter city, to adopt an ordinance prescribing fees for filing applications for specified building permits, as provided. This bill would broaden the above-described permission and require a county or city that prescribes fees for a nonresidential building permit to prepare a nonresidential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website. This bill would additionally require a local building department to conduct an inspection of the permitted work for specified new nonresidential buildings or structures within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects. By expanding the crime of perjury, and by imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
Who sponsors CA AB 2418?
Mark González is the primary sponsor of CA AB 2418, joined by 7 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law requires every city, county, or city and county, whether general law or chartered, that requires the issuance of a permit as a condition precedent to the construction, alteration, improvement, demolition, or repair of any building or structure, to require the execution of a permit application, as specified. Existing law permits a local agency, defined as a city, county, or city and county, to authorize its enforcement agency to contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform plan-checking functions for a nonresidential building, but the local agency is not required to do so if it determines that no entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services. Under existing law, when there is an excessive delay, as defined, in checking plans submitted as part of an application for specified nonresidential projects, a local agency is required to, upon request of the applicant, contract with or employ a private entity or persons on a temporary basis to perform the plan-checking function. Existing law defines "excessive delay" to mean, among other things, the local agency has taken more than 50 days to check plans and specifications, as provided. This bill would, until January 1, 2032, revise and recast the above-described provisions related to private plan checking. The bill would, upon receipt of a complete application for a nonresidential building permit, require the city or county to provide the applicant with an estimated timeframe in which it will determine if the completed application is compliant with permit standards. This bill would require the local agency to, upon an applicant's request, contract with or employ a private plan-checking entity if the estimated timeframe would result in an excessive delay or if there is excessive delay by the local agency. The bill would prohibit a local agency from reducing, eliminating, or failing to fill budgeted civil service positions within the building department as a result of the use of private professional providers, as provided. If the local agency determines no private entities or persons are available or qualified to perform plan-checking services, the bill would authorize the applicant to retain, at their sole expense, a private professional provider, as specified. The bill would shorten the timeframe constituting an "excessive delay" from 50 days to 30 business days. This bill would require an applicant who retains a private professional provider to notify the city or county of their intent to retain the private professional provider within a prescribed timeframe. If a private professional provider performs the plan-checking function, the bill would impose additional requirements, including, among other things, requiring the private professional provider to prepare a specified affidavit, under penalty of perjury, and the applicant to submit to the city or county a specified report of the plan check. This bill would require the city or county, within 10 business days of receiving the report, to consider the report and, based on the report, either issue the residential building permit, as provided, or notify the applicant that, according to the report prepared by the private professional provider, the plans and specifications do not comply, as specified. If the city or county notifies the applicant that the plans and specifications do not comply, the bill would authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans and specifications to the city or county, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt requirements that limit the size of an eligible nonresidential building, as provided, or specify the eligible types of businesses or occupancy, provided that the requirements do not prohibit or effectively prohibit the use of a private professional provider as authorized by the bill. Existing law, the Government Claims Act, establishes the liability and immunity of a public entity for its acts or omissions that cause harm to persons. Where a public entity is under a mandatory duty imposed by an enactment that is designed to protect against the risk of a particular kind of injury, existing law imposes liability upon the public entity for an injury of that kind proximately caused by its failure to discharge the duty unless the public entity establishes that it exercised reasonable diligence to discharge the duty. This bill would, notwithstanding existing public entity liability provisions, grant a public entity immunity from liability for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of any nonresidential building permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. The bill would require the applicant to enter into an agreement to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the local agency and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding brought against the local agency or its agents, officers, or employees relating to any property damage or personal injury arising from construction in accordance with the plans checked by a private professional provider under the bill's provisions. Existing law permits the governing body of any county or city, including a charter city, to adopt an ordinance prescribing fees for filing applications for specified building permits, as provided. This bill would broaden the above-described permission and require a county or city that prescribes fees for a nonresidential building permit to prepare a nonresidential building permit fee schedule and post the schedule on the county's or city's internet website. This bill would additionally require a local building department to conduct an inspection of the permitted work for specified new nonresidential buildings or structures within 10 business days of receiving a notice of the completion of the permitted work authorized by a building permit issued for those projects. By expanding the crime of perjury, and by imposing new duties on local agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would include related findings and declarations. The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
- Introduced
- 2026-06-23
- Latest action
- 2026-09-30 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 828, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Mark Gonzálezauthor
- Schiavocoauthor
- Wickscoauthor
- Zburcoauthor
- Calozacoauthor
- Arreguíncoauthor
- Blanca Rubiocoauthor
- Nguyencoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-30
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 828, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-30
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-08-27
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-20
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-20
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-20
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 76. Noes 0. Page 6327.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-19
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-19
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0.).
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-08-19
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 38. Noes 0. Page 5555.).
2026-08-11
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-10
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-04
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-03
From committee: Be ordered to second reading pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2
2026-07-01
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 13. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-24
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-23
From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (June 23).
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,referral-committee
2026-06-10
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-05-27
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 5292.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-22
Measure version as amended on May 21 corrected.
amendment-passage
2026-05-21
Read third time and amended. Ordered to third reading. (Page 5243.)
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-14
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-13
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (May 13).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-05-13
Coauthors revised.
2026-04-22
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (April 21). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-04-16
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-09
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-02-21
From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.
2026-02-20
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-04-15 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (10)
- Wilson: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Ward: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Ta: yes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] with recommendation: To Consent Calendar
2026-04-21 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (12)
- Zbur: yes
- Papan: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Stefani: yes
Do pass.
2026-05-13 · pass · 15-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Pacheco: yes
- Krell: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ta: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Fong: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pellerin: yes
AB 2418 Mark González Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-26 · pass · 78-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Ellis: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Wilson: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Lee: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Alvarez: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Fong: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Papan: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Haney: yes
- Chen: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Berman: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Flora: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Arambula: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Davies: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Ward: yes
- Patel: yes
- Hart: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Ta: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Soria: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Solache: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Krell: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Bains: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Addis: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Muratsuchi: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
Do pass as amended, but first amend, and re-refer to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-06-23 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Choi: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Laird: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Seyarto: yes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-30 · pass · 13-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Niello: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Laird: yes
- Stern: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Allen: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Durazo: yes
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-01T18:16:37.777218Z
Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:
Session-wide evidence can include changes to other bills:
Use this data
Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 2418. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.
Known limitations
- Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
- Committee referrals are not yet captured.
- Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.
See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.