Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would limit use of historic‑district designations to block California Home Act duplexes and lot splits
Summary
AB 10 61 would prevent broad historic‑district exclusions from stopping duplexes and small lot splits allowed under the California HOME Act while preserving protections for individually listed landmark properties and some contributing structures; cities and preservation groups raised concerns about local authority and economic realities.
Assemblymember introduced AB 10 61, which would narrow the historic‑district exemption that has been used in some places to block housing opportunities created by the California HOME Act (SB 9 and related legislation). The measure allows small duplexes and lot splits in historic districts under defined conditions, preserves prohibitions for individually listed landmark properties, and preserves local authority to set design standards for non‑contributing properties.
Support: Housing advocates, YIMBY groups, and the Lieutenant Governor’s office supported the bill, saying that some parties have weaponized broad historic‑district designations to block affordable infill housing and that the proposal balances preservation with housing access. The bill keeps protections for individually listed historic landmarks and allows local governments to adopt design standards for non‑contributing properties within districts.
Opposition and local government concerns: The League of California Cities and the City of Beverly Hills opposed the bill, saying historic preservation is often central to local economies and tourism and should remain a local decision. The League cautioned that historic designations were negotiated as part of prior SB 9 compromises and warned against a state override that would undercut local planning choices.
Committee debate: Senators discussed examples where state‑level preservation designations were used to expand historic districts with limited local involvement. Supporters argued the bill protects legitimate historic resources while closing a loophole that allows expansive district designations to preclude state housing law. Some senators emphasized caution to avoid undermining locally driven preservation efforts.
Outcome: The committee passed AB 10 61 as amended to Appropriations; the vote summary recorded mixed votes and the bill was reported out of committee for continued consideration.
