CA AB 1693
enactedAccelerated retailer building plan approval: tenant improvements.
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 1693 pass?
Yes. CA AB 1693 has been enacted into law. Latest recorded action (2026-09-30): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 827, Statutes of 2026.
What is CA AB 1693 about?
Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law authorizes local governments to enact ordinances or regulations that make building standards amendments to the California Building Standards Code, as specified. Existing law establishes a streamlined approval process for a local permit for a tenant improvement related to a restaurant, as defined. This bill would establish a similar streamlined approval process for a local permit for a tenant improvement relating to a retailer, as defined. In this regard, the bill would require a local building department, upon the request and at the expense of the permit applicant, to allow a qualified professional certifier, defined as a licensed architect or engineer who meets certain requirements, to certify that the plans and specifications of the tenant improvement comply with all applicable building, health, and safety codes, as specified, unless otherwise provided by specified provisions. The bill would require a qualified professional certifier, or the applicant, as applicable, to prepare certain affidavits related to the tenant improvement under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. The bill would require each local building department to conduct audits of tenant improvements submitted for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt additional qualifications or requirements for qualified professional certifiers, including penalties or reasonable administrative fines for certain actions. The bill would make qualified professional certifiers liable for any damages arising from negligent plan review. The bill would also require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the above-described provisions. The bill would further require the use of a qualified professional certifier to be temporary in cases in which there is an excessive delay, as defined. Existing law establishes the California Architects Board and the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists to administer the licensure and regulation of architects and engineers, respectively. Existing law specifies grounds for disciplinary action by the boards. This bill would deem making a false statement in a certification described above to be grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee who serves as a qualified professional certifier. 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, the act makes the public entity liable 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, notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of a permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review processes established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of a tenant improvement, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. This bill would also make 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. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the review and approval of tenant improvements for retailers, and by expanding the scope of various crimes related to these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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 1693?
Zbur is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1693, joined by 5 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law, the California Building Standards Law, establishes the California Building Standards Commission within the Department of General Services. Existing law requires the commission to approve and adopt building standards and to codify those standards in the California Building Standards Code. Existing law authorizes local governments to enact ordinances or regulations that make building standards amendments to the California Building Standards Code, as specified. Existing law establishes a streamlined approval process for a local permit for a tenant improvement related to a restaurant, as defined. This bill would establish a similar streamlined approval process for a local permit for a tenant improvement relating to a retailer, as defined. In this regard, the bill would require a local building department, upon the request and at the expense of the permit applicant, to allow a qualified professional certifier, defined as a licensed architect or engineer who meets certain requirements, to certify that the plans and specifications of the tenant improvement comply with all applicable building, health, and safety codes, as specified, unless otherwise provided by specified provisions. The bill would require a qualified professional certifier, or the applicant, as applicable, to prepare certain affidavits related to the tenant improvement under penalty of perjury. The bill would require the local building department to approve or deny the permit application within 20 business days of receiving a complete application. The bill would also authorize the applicant to resubmit corrected plans addressing the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, would limit the local building department's review of each subsequent resubmission to the deficiencies identified in the initial denial, and would require the local building department to approve or deny each subsequent resubmission within 10 business days of receipt. The bill would require each local building department to conduct audits of tenant improvements submitted for certification, as specified. The bill would authorize a city or county to adopt additional qualifications or requirements for qualified professional certifiers, including penalties or reasonable administrative fines for certain actions. The bill would make qualified professional certifiers liable for any damages arising from negligent plan review. The bill would also require the applicant to indemnify the local agency from any property damage or personal injury arising from construction permitted under the above-described provisions. The bill would further require the use of a qualified professional certifier to be temporary in cases in which there is an excessive delay, as defined. Existing law establishes the California Architects Board and the Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors, and Geologists to administer the licensure and regulation of architects and engineers, respectively. Existing law specifies grounds for disciplinary action by the boards. This bill would deem making a false statement in a certification described above to be grounds for disciplinary action against a licensee who serves as a qualified professional certifier. 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, the act makes the public entity liable 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, notwithstanding the above-described liability of a public entity for failure to discharge certain mandatory duties, would provide that a public entity or public employee is not liable for an injury caused by their discretionary or ministerial acts or omissions relating to the issuance or denial of a permit pursuant to the bill's provisions. Existing law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may have a significant effect on the environment or to adopt a negative declaration if it finds that the project will not have that effect. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects. To the extent that the streamlined, ministerial review processes established by the bill would apply to final, discretionary approval of a tenant improvement, the bill would exempt those projects from CEQA. This bill would also make 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. By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the review and approval of tenant improvements for retailers, and by expanding the scope of various crimes related to these provisions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. 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
- 2026-06-25
- Latest action
- 2026-09-30 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 827, Statutes of 2026.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Zburauthor
- Alaniscoauthor
- Mark Gonzálezcoauthor
- Solachecoauthor
- Walliscoauthor
- Wickscoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
Newest first
2026-09-30
Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 827, Statutes of 2026.
became-law
2026-09-30
Approved by the Governor.
executive-signature
2026-09-03
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
executive-receipt
2026-08-26
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).
2026-08-26
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0.).
2026-08-26
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 79. Noes 0. Page 6634.).
amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-08-24
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
2026-08-21
Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.
amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-20
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-08-19
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 12. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-25
From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on JUD.
amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2026-06-22
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 22). Re-referred to Com. on JUD.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-17
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on B. P. & E.D. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on B. P. & E.D.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-06-03
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV., B. P. & E.D. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-05-14
In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.
reading-1,referral-committee
2026-05-14
Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 77. Noes 0. Page 5044.)
passage,reading-1,reading-3
2026-05-07
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
reading-1,reading-2,reading-3
2026-05-06
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (May 6).
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable
2026-04-21
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 18. 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 B. & P. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (April 15). Re-referred to Com. on B. & P.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2026-03-16
Referred to Coms. on L. GOV., NAT. RES. and JUD.
referral-committee
2026-02-04
From printer. May be heard in committee March 6.
2026-02-03
Read first time. To print.
reading-1
Versions
Documents
- 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(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
Votes
Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Business and Professions]
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]
2026-04-21 · pass · 18-0
Member-level votes (19)
- Lowenthal: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Berman: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Chen: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Haney: yes
- Hart: yes
- Bains: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Addis: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Caloza: other
Do pass.
2026-05-06 · pass · 14-0
Member-level votes (15)
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Solache: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Fong: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Ta: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Krell: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Arambula: other
AB 1693 Zbur Assembly Third Reading
2026-05-14 · pass · 77-0
Member-level votes (80)
- Flora: yes
- Petrie-Norris: yes
- Chen: yes
- Bryan: yes
- Berman: yes
- Blanca Rubio: yes
- Schiavo: yes
- Kalra: yes
- Johnson: yes
- Wallis: yes
- Rogers: yes
- Macedo: yes
- Pacheco: yes
- Pellerin: yes
- Aguiar-Curry: yes
- Soria: yes
- Muratsuchi: yes
- Sanchez: yes
- Quirk-Silva: yes
- Lowenthal: yes
- Solache: yes
- Wilson: yes
- DeMaio: yes
- Lackey: yes
- Hart: yes
- Ortega: yes
- Jeff Gonzalez: yes
- Dixon: yes
- Papan: yes
- Davies: yes
- Irwin: yes
- Nguyen: yes
- Ransom: yes
- Lee: yes
- Fong: yes
- Bennett: yes
- Ward: yes
- Krell: yes
- Wicks: yes
- Harabedian: yes
- Carrillo: yes
- Ta: yes
- Addis: yes
- Ahrens: yes
- Schultz: yes
- Michelle Rodriguez: yes
- Zbur: yes
- Caloza: yes
- Bains: yes
- McKinnor: yes
- Alanis: yes
- Haney: yes
- Ramos: yes
- Tangipa: yes
- Rivas: yes
- Gallagher: yes
- Calderon: yes
- Stefani: yes
- Connolly: yes
- Ellis: yes
- Bonta: yes
- Ávila Farías: yes
- Garcia: yes
- Sharp-Collins: yes
- Patel: yes
- Elhawary: yes
- Valencia: yes
- Jackson: yes
- Hoover: yes
- Gipson: yes
- Bauer-Kahan: yes
- Gabriel: yes
- Patterson: yes
- Castillo: yes
- Hadwick: yes
- Mark González: yes
- Boerner: yes
- Arambula: other
- Alvarez: other
- Celeste Rodriguez: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Business, Professions and Economic Development]
2026-06-17 · pass · 6-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Arreguín: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Choi: yes
- Cervantes: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary]
2026-06-22 · pass · 10-0
Member-level votes (11)
- Niello: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Menjivar: yes
- Arreguín: yes
- Strickland: yes
- Choi: yes
- Archuleta: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Richardson: yes
- Smallwood-Cuevas: other
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]
2026-06-30 · pass · 12-0
Member-level votes (13)
- Wahab: yes
- Niello: yes
- Umberg: yes
- Laird: yes
- Ashby: yes
- Allen: yes
- Valladares: yes
- Weber Pierson: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Reyes: yes
- Durazo: yes
- Stern: other
Related bills
No related bills recorded for this bill.
Official source
Attribution
Data from openstates_api_sync, retrieved 2026-10-03T08:12:59.620695Z
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 1693. 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.