SB 918 amends Section 114259.2 of the California Health and Safety Code to change technical limits and equipment requirements for passthrough window service openings at retail food facilities. The bill removes the mandatory self-closing device for the base 216-square-inch opening, permits openings up to 432 square inches when fitted with either an air curtain or a self-closing device, and allows openings larger than 432 square inches only when equipped with both an air curtain and a self-closing device.
It keeps other technical requirements—minimum screening (16 mesh), openings at least 18 inches apart, and smooth, easily cleanable counter surfaces.
The bill also restricts passthrough windows and similar service openings to food delivery operations only, prohibiting their use as general employee or customer entrances, and declares violations enforceable by local health authorities (creating a state-mandated local program). A separate clause states the Legislature will not reimburse local agencies under the state constitution because the change relates to criminal definitions or penalties.
At a Glance
What It Does
SB 918 changes maximum sizes and equipment combinations for passthrough service openings: 216 sq in remains the baseline but no longer must have a self-closing device; 216–432 sq in is allowed with an air curtain OR a self-closing device; >432 sq in is allowed only with both devices. It preserves screening, spacing, and surface-cleanability requirements.
Who It Affects
Retail food facilities (quick-service restaurants, cafes, ghost kitchens, concession stands, and fixed food trucks using passthrough windows), local environmental health departments that inspect and enforce the California Retail Food Code, and manufacturers/installers of air curtains and self-closing hardware.
Why It Matters
The bill trades prescriptive hardware rules for conditional flexibility, which can lower retrofit costs for some operators while increasing demand for air curtains and combined solutions. It also creates a clearer operational limitation—delivery-only use for passthroughs—that local agencies will need to enforce, potentially converting certain violations into criminal or infraction matters.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 918 rewrites the technical rulebook for passthrough window service openings that many quick-service and takeaway operations use to hand food directly to customers or couriers. The bill keeps the 216-square-inch baseline opening but removes the older requirement that that baseline window be equipped with a self-closing device.
Instead, the bill sets a tiered approval scheme: openings between 216 and 432 square inches may be used if the facility installs either an air curtain or a self-closing device; openings larger than 432 square inches require both an air curtain and a self-closing device. Those device requirements are the gate that allows larger physical openings.
SB 918 preserves several existing technical hygiene elements. Each passthrough must still have a solid or screened window closed when not in use, with screening at least 16 mesh per square inch, openings spaced no closer than 18 inches, and counter surfaces that are smooth and easily cleanable.
The bill adds a usage restriction: a passthrough window or other service opening must be used specifically for food delivery operations and cannot serve as a general entrance or exit for employees or customers.On enforcement, the bill’s language makes improper use of a passthrough subject to the California Retail Food Code’s enforcement regime; because the amendment changes the definition and scope of a crime or infraction, the legislative text treats the resulting enforcement duties as a state-mandated local program but declares no state reimbursement under the constitutional exception for criminal-law changes. Practically, local public health agencies will retain discretion to approve larger openings under the equipment conditions and to cite violations when passthroughs are used as staff or customer doors.SB 918 leaves several administrative details undefined.
The bill does not add device performance standards, maintenance or testing schedules, or explicit approval procedures beyond saying a larger opening "may be approved" when equipped as specified. That places emphasis on local agencies to interpret terms like "air curtain device," determine acceptable installation and maintenance, and reconcile any conflicts with building or fire egress rules.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill removes the mandatory self-closing device for the default 216-square-inch passthrough window but keeps the requirement that the window be solid or screened and closed when not in use.
Openings between 216 and 432 square inches are permissible if the facility installs either an air curtain device or a self-closing device; openings larger than 432 square inches require both devices.
Screening must be at least 16 mesh per square inch and passthrough openings must be spaced at least 18 inches apart; counters must be smooth and easily cleanable.
SB 918 explicitly limits passthrough windows to food delivery operations and prohibits their use as a general entrance or exit for employees or customers, making improper use enforceable under the Retail Food Code.
The bill’s change is treated as creating or modifying a crime/infraction for reimbursement purposes, which triggers a local enforcement obligation while the Legislature declares no state reimbursement under the constitutional exception.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Baseline passthrough limits, screening, spacing, and counter finish
This subsection restates and slightly relaxes the baseline technical rules. The 216-square-inch cap remains the default size, openings must be no closer than 18 inches, screening must be at least 16 mesh per square inch, and counters must be smooth and easily cleanable. Critically, the bill removes the previous absolute requirement that a 216-square-inch solid or screened window be equipped with a self-closing device, which reduces a prescriptive hardware mandate for that baseline condition.
Intermediate opening approval (216–432 square inches)
This provision allows local approval for passthrough openings between 216 and 432 square inches if the operator installs either an air curtain or a self-closing device. The change replaces a prior standard that required an air curtain for this size tier, giving operators the alternative of a simpler mechanical self-closing solution. Practically, inspectors will now assess either device’s presence rather than insist on an air curtain for intermediate sizes.
Large opening approval (greater than 432 square inches)
Openings larger than 432 square inches may be approved only when the operator provides both a self-closing device and an air curtain. The bill thus preserves a steep equipment threshold for very large passthroughs, signaling regulators’ intent to allow physical expansion only when multiple mitigation measures are in place. Operators seeking larger openings will need to budget for both pieces of equipment and for any associated installation and maintenance work.
Use restriction: delivery-only passthroughs
This short subsection prohibits use of a passthrough or other service opening as a general entrance or exit; it must be used specifically for food delivery operations. That converts certain operational practices—using a passthrough as a staff or customer ingress/egress—into violations of the Retail Food Code, placing enforcement responsibility squarely with local environmental health departments.
State-mandated local program/constitutional reimbursement clause
The bill declares that it creates or changes a crime or infraction and therefore characterizes the added enforcement duties as a state-mandated local program. Simultaneously, it invokes the constitutional exception that denies state reimbursement where the statute creates or modifies criminal law. The practical result is that local agencies carry new or altered enforcement responsibilities without an accompanying state reimbursement stream.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Healthcare across all five countries.
Explore Healthcare in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Small quick-service and takeaway operators that rely on passthroughs — they gain flexibility to use a self-closing device instead of installing an air curtain for openings up to 432 sq in, lowering retrofit costs in many cases.
- Operators seeking slightly larger service windows — locations that need more cake, larger trays, or contactless courier handoffs can apply to local agencies for openings up to 432 sq in (with one device) or larger when they invest in both devices.
- Manufacturers, vendors, and installers of air curtains and self-closing hardware — the tiered approvals create additional, predictable demand for these products and installation services.
- Architects, kitchen designers, and consultants advising restaurants and ghost kitchens — clearer device-based approval rules let designers propose compliant passthrough solutions without seeking bespoke variances.
Who Bears the Cost
- Local environmental health departments — they must interpret device adequacy, review approvals for larger openings, and enforce the delivery-only restriction without additional reimbursement support.
- Operators who want openings larger than 432 sq in — they must install and maintain both an air curtain and a self-closing device, increasing capital and ongoing maintenance costs.
- Restaurants and facilities currently using passthroughs as staff or customer doors — they may need to reconfigure circulation paths, add doors, or alter workflows to avoid enforcement risk.
- Local code and fire officials — the restriction on entrances could produce conflicts with building egress and accessibility requirements, creating coordination and potential retrofit costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing sanitation-minded prescriptiveness against operational flexibility and enforceability: requiring specific devices protects against contamination risks but raises equipment and maintenance costs and invites technical disputes, while giving operators more device options and permitting larger openings transfers responsibility to local inspectors and businesses, potentially producing uneven public-health protections and increased enforcement burdens.
SB 918 attempts a tidy technical fix—let operators choose devices to justify larger passthroughs—while also closing a perceived operational loophole by restricting passthroughs to delivery use. That tidy framing hides difficult implementation points.
The bill does not define "air curtain device" performance, how inspectors should verify proper installation or ongoing effectiveness, or what maintenance records (if any) operators must keep. Without device performance standards, enforcement could become a contest of inspector judgment versus operator assertions, producing inconsistent outcomes across counties.
The delivery-only prohibition raises enforceability and legal coordination questions. The statute makes improper use of a passthrough an enforceable Retail Food Code violation, but it does not reconcile that limitation with building, fire, or accessibility codes that typically govern permitted entrances and egress.
Facilities that use passthroughs for staff circulation for safety or workflow reasons may face awkward and potentially expensive reconfiguration orders. Finally, although the bill labels the change as creating or modifying a crime to avoid state reimbursement, that very characterization may raise disputes about appropriate enforcement levels and competing local budget priorities.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.