Where California is building
Two datasets, side by side. Growth ranks come from the U.S. Census Bureau Building Permits Survey — new privately-owned residential construction only, not total permit volume. The fee column is each city’s own published residential building-permit fee, shown verbatim for reference: it is never ranked, averaged, or presented as comparable across cities (why not →).
Census activity data covers 90 of the 90 California jurisdictions PermitBase tracks.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Building Permits Survey (BPS) · data through 2026-08
Fastest-growing cities
Trailing-12-month units, ranked by year-over-year growth — each city’s residential permit fee sits alongside for reference, never part of the rank.
Trailing-12-month units, by growth
- Fremont
- 701 units
- +744.6%
- Santa Clara
- 741 units
- +325.9%
- Oakland
- 1,007 units
- +257.1%
- Palmdale
- 480 units
- +209.7%
- Santa Rosa
- 699 units
- +184.1%
- Fremont: residential permit fee Set by a published table: "Master Fee Schedule Exhibit 1: Minimum Acceptable Building Permit Valuation per Square Foot".†
- Santa Clara: residential permit fee Charged since July 1, 2026; the amount varies by payment method.
- Oakland: residential permit fee NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read
- Palmdale: residential permit fee NOT PUBLISHED on the page read for this record.
- Santa Rosa: residential permit fee Based on the value of the project.
Eligible for a growth rank: fully-reported trailing-12 and prior-12 month windows, a prior-year total of at least 50 units, and place-level (non-county) records only.
California cities by building-permit growth
Ranked by trailing-12-month Census units. The fee column is reference only — see how to read this table.
| # | Jurisdiction | Trailing-12 units | YoY growth | Residential permit fee * |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Los Angeles | 18,678 | +86.8% | Calculated per project by the City's Permit Fee Calculator; no schedule is publishedVerifieddetails → |
| 2 | San Diego | 5,986 | — insufficient history | $737.00Verifieddetails → |
| 3 | San Jose | 3,943 | +65.1% | NOT PUBLISHED on the permit service pagesVerifieddetails → |
| 4 | Sacramento | 2,116 | −4.5% | Published separately in the City's building fee pagesVerifieddetails → |
| 5 | San Francisco | 1,654 | +54.9% | Valuation-banded; see notes.†Verifieddetails → |
| 6 | Fresno | 1,478(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Due at permit issuanceVerifieddetails → |
| 7 | Fontana | 1,194 | −1.2% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 8 | Elk Grove | 1,038 | −27.6% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 9 | Oakland | 1,007 | +257.1% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages readVerifieddetails → |
| 10 | Roseville | 951 | −44.1% | Based on the use and square footage of the building, resolved through a published valuation.†Verifieddetails → |
| 11 | Chula Vista | 910 | +22.5% | Five factors, published as a list.Verifieddetails → |
| 12 | Visalia | 899 | +85.7% | Payable before processing; amounts not transcribed for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 13 | Irvine | 847(10 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.details → |
| 14 | Manteca | 810 | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 15 | Oceanside | 766 | −19.0% | Six separate published documents.Verifieddetails → |
| 16 | Santa Clara | 741 | +325.9% | Charged since July 1, 2026; the amount varies by payment method.Verifieddetails → |
| 17 | Fremont | 701 | +744.6% | Set by a published table: "Master Fee Schedule Exhibit 1: Minimum Acceptable Building Permit Valuation per Square Foot".†Verifieddetails → |
| 18 | Santa Rosa | 699 | +184.1% | Based on the value of the project.Verifieddetails → |
| 19 | Modesto | 675(10 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 20 | Menifee | 597(10 mo) | — insufficient history | At submittal, including plan review fees.Verifieddetails → |
| 21 | Ontario | 595(8 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 22 | Clovis | 586 | −7.6% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 23 | Palmdale | 480 | +209.7% | NOT PUBLISHED on the page read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 24 | Folsom | 445 | −17.3% | Paid via eTRAKiT before the plan portal opens.Verifieddetails → |
| 25 | Murrieta | 433 | −66.6% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 26 | Indio | 425 | −11.8% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 27 | Santa Monica | 412(2 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 28 | Pasadena | 400 | +166.7% | Valuation-based, using the International Code Council Building Valuation Data table.†Verifieddetails → |
| 29 | Garden Grove | 398(11 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 30 | Yuba City | 367(10 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 31 | Hesperia | 352 | −27.0% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 32 | San Marcos | 349 | −58.4% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 33 | Vacaville | 330 | −21.6% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 34 | Merced | 325 | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED as a schedule on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 35 | Antioch | 316 | +134.1% | Based on the valuation of the proposed construction.†Verifieddetails → |
| 36 | Stockton | 309 | −10.2% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.details → |
| 37 | Temecula | 275 | +7.8% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 38 | Rancho Cucamonga | 273 | −66.5% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 39 | Pomona | 272 | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 40 | Riverside | 269(9 mo) | — insufficient history | $39.00Verifieddetails → |
| 41 | Santa Clarita | 266 | −37.9% | $146Verifieddetails → |
| 42 | Lancaster | 253 | −71.9% | In force since October 1, 2025; amounts not transcribed for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 43 | Chino | 252 | −28.6% | Published as a PDF, "Updated June 25, 2026".Verifieddetails → |
| 44 | Fullerton | 249 | +48.2% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 45 | Moreno Valley | 249(11 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 46 | Escondido | 241(11 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 47 | Daly City | 233(7 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 48 | Salinas | 231 | +35.9% | May apply; amounts not published on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 49 | Tracy | 204 | −59.3% | An hourly rate with a 1/2-hour minimum. THE RATE ITSELF IS NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 50 | Santa Maria | 191(6 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 51 | El Cajon | 185(8 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED as a schedule; quoted by telephone.Verifieddetails → |
| 52 | Anaheim | 179 | −70.0% | $167.00details → |
| 53 | Carlsbad | 173 | −75.7% | Typically based on square footage or construction valuation.†Verifieddetails → |
| 54 | Napa | 170 | +14.1% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 55 | Corona | 160(8 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 56 | Fairfield | 150 | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 57 | Victorville | 121(4 mo) | — insufficient history | After plan review and approval.Verifieddetails → |
| 58 | Turlock | 109 | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the page read.Verifieddetails → |
| 59 | San Bernardino | 102 | — below floor | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 60 | Sunnyvale | 97 | −23.6% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 61 | Richmond | 91 | −26.6% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 62 | Whittier | 86 | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 63 | Santa Ana | 82(3 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.details → |
| 64 | Orange | 72(7 mo) | — insufficient history | 4:30 p.m., against a 5:00 p.m. counter close.Verifieddetails → |
| 65 | Redding | 70(10 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 66 | Concord | 66 | −18.5% | Published per fee, in a dedicated Fee Basis column.Verifieddetails → |
| 67 | Hayward | 63 | −50.0% | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 68 | Livermore | 56 | −81.1% | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 69 | Alameda | 44 | — insufficient history | Published in a Master Fee Schedule rather than on the permit pages.Verifieddetails → |
| 70 | Oxnard | 44 | −88.5% | Free.Verifieddetails → |
| 71 | Vallejo | 41 | — insufficient history | Valuation-based, against the International Code Council valuation table.†Verifieddetails → |
| 72 | El Monte | 38(2 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 73 | Glendale | 32(2 mo) | — insufficient history | A new citywide fee schedule adopted June 23, 2026, phased in across three dates.Verifieddetails → |
| 74 | Torrance | 32(11 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 75 | San Mateo | 31(11 mo) | — insufficient history | Based on the valuation of the project.†Verifieddetails → |
| 76 | Citrus Heights | 23(6 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 77 | Mountain View | 22(5 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| 78 | Burbank | 20(2 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED as figures on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| 79 | Huntington Beach | 19(1 mo) | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.details → |
| 80 | Carson | 16 | — below floor | NOT PUBLISHED on either page read.Verifieddetails → |
| 81 | Mission Viejo | 8 | — below floor | NOT READ for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| — | Bakersfield | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.details → |
| — | Berkeley | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| — | Hemet | no data reported | — insufficient history | Published as a schedule labelled FY 2025-26.Verifieddetails → |
| — | Inglewood | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the page read.Verifieddetails → |
| — | Long Beach | no data reported | — insufficient history | Per the City's published fee schedulesVerifieddetails → |
| — | Newport Beach | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT READ for this record. A Fee Schedule and a Building Valuation Table are published, but neither document was opened and no amount is reproduced here.†Verifieddetails → |
| — | Redwood City | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT TRANSCRIBED for this record.Verifieddetails → |
| — | Santa Barbara | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED as figures on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
| — | West Covina | no data reported | — insufficient history | NOT PUBLISHED on the pages read.Verifieddetails → |
How to read this table
Rows are ranked only by Census building-activity units — the one figure that’s measured the same way in every city. The fee column is never ranked, averaged, or sorted, because permit fees aren’t measured the same way from city to city: some jurisdictions charge a flat fee, others price on a sliding scale tied to construction valuation, others per square foot, others as a percentage of the building permit fee. Averaging or sorting those numbers together would compare figures that don’t measure the same thing — a “cheapest city” ranking built on that mix would be a misleading metric, so we don’t build one.
A dagger (†) next to a fee means it’s the starting tier from a valuation-based or sliding-scale schedule per the jurisdiction’s own published fee table — not a final total for every project. Open the linked permit page for the complete schedule.
The growth percentage only appears when a jurisdiction’s trailing-12-month and prior-12-month windows were both fully reported to the Census Bureau, and the prior-year total was at least 50 units. Below that floor a percentage swings too wildly on a small base to be meaningful, so we withhold it rather than publish a misleading rate. County-level rows never get a growth rank, since county totals can include Census imputation for non-reporting offices.
Two provenance regimes are stacked on this page: Census activity figures are self-reported by jurisdictions to the Bureau on a monthly cadence, while permit fees are independently verified by PermitBase against each department’s own published schedule (see the confidence badge and source link on each fee). A jurisdiction shown as “no data reported” did not report to the Census Bureau for that period — that is never the same as zero activity.
Frequently asked questions
- Why don't you rank cities by permit cost?
- Permit fees aren't measured the same way from city to city — one jurisdiction charges a flat fee, another prices on a sliding scale tied to construction valuation, another per square foot, another as a percentage of the building permit fee. Sorting those numbers together and calling the smallest one "cheapest" would compare figures that don't measure the same thing, which is a misleading metric dressed up as a ranking. So this page ranks only what's genuinely comparable across cities — Census building-activity units — and shows each city's own published fee next to it, verbatim, for reference only.
- What does the growth percentage measure?
- Year-over-year change in trailing-12-month housing units authorized for new privately-owned residential construction, per the Census Bureau Building Permits Survey. It only appears when both the current and prior 12-month windows were fully reported and the prior-year total meets a minimum reporting floor — otherwise a percentage would be either impossible to compute or too volatile to be meaningful.
- What does the dagger (†) next to a fee mean?
- It marks a fee that's a starting tier from a valuation-based or sliding-scale schedule, not a flat final total. Open the city's permit page for the complete fee table.
- Why do some cities show “no data reported” instead of a number?
- That jurisdiction didn't report to the Census Bureau for that period. We show it as unreported, never as zero — assuming zero activity for a non-reporting jurisdiction would be inventing a data point that doesn't exist.
See full California building-activity detail →·Look up a specific California permit fee →
Get this as a monthly email
The California Growth & Permit Costs Report: one email a month when fresh Census data lands — fastest-growing California cities by trailing-12-month building activity, each paired with its own published residential permit fee. New privately-owned residential construction only.
We only use your email to send permit updates. No spam, unsubscribe anytime. Privacy.