← California State Legislature · All bills
AB 1061
Housing developments: urban lot splits: historical resources.
Assembly · Housing
What this bill does
With respect to ministerial review of a proposed housing development under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to consider ministerially the development that is not located in either a contributing structure within a historic district included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance or in a parcel individually listed as a historical resource included in the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a property individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark under a city or county ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local agency to adopt objective standards for the purposes of maintaining the historical value of a historic district listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, as specified. …
Read the full official summary
Under the Planning and Zoning Law, the legislative body of a county or city may adopt ordinances that, among other things, regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land, as provided. The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the legislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency's processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps. Existing law requires a local agency to consider ministerially a specified proposed housing development or to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split if the development or parcel meets specified requirements, including, that the development or parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance, as specified. Existing law authorizes a local agency to impose specified objective standards on the development or parcel created by an urban lot split, except as specified.
With respect to ministerial review of a proposed housing development under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to consider ministerially the development that is not located in either a contributing structure within a historic district included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a historic property or district pursuant to city or county ordinance or in a parcel individually listed as a historical resource included in the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a property individually designated or listed as a city or county landmark under a city or county ordinance. The bill would also authorize a local agency to adopt objective standards for the purposes of maintaining the historical value of a historic district listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, as specified.
With respect to an urban lot split under the above-described provisions, this bill would, if the other specified requirements are met, instead require a local agency to ministerially approve the urban lot split if the parcel is not located within a historic landmark property included on the State Historical Resources Inventory or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark pursuant to a city or county ordinance. The bill would additionally require that the proposed urban lot split not require demolition or alteration of specified structures.
By imposing additional duties on local agencies, 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 a specified reason.
Official summary from the Legislative Counsel’s office, via OpenStates.
Floor votes (3)
May 19, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 45 yes · 14 no · 20 other
Yes (45): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, David Alvarez, Jasmeet Bains, Marc Berman, Blanca Rubio, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephanie Nguyen, Liz Ortega, Darsh Patel, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (14): Tasha Boerner, Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Stan Ellis, James Gallagher, Heather Hadwick, Ali Macedo, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Greg Wallis
Other / no vote recorded (20): Juan Alanis, Joaquin Arambula, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Steve Bennett, Lisa Calderon, Damon Connolly, Diane Dixon, Heath Flora, Gregg Hart, Joshua Hoover, Jacqui Irwin, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Lackey, Al Muratsuchi, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Avelino Valencia, Rick Zbur
Official motion wording
AB 1061 Quirk-Silva Assembly Third Reading
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 3, 2025 — Third reading vote
Passed · 24 yes · 10 no · 6 other
Yes (24): Jesse Arreguín, Angelique Ashby, Christopher Cabaldon, Anna Caballero, Sabrina Cervantes, Dave Cortese, María Elena Durazo, Lena Gonzalez, Tim Grayson, Melissa Hurtado, John Laird, Mike McGuire, Jerry McNerney, Caroline Menjivar, Steve Padilla, Sasha Pérez, Eloise Reyes, Laura Richardson, Susan Rubio, Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Henry Stern, Tom Umberg, Aisha Wahab, Scott Wiener
No (10): Marie Alvarado-Gil, Steve Choi, Megan Dahle, Shannon Grove, Brian Jones, Roger Niello, Rosilicie Ochoa Bogh, Kelly Seyarto, Tony Strickland, Suzette Valladares
Other / no vote recorded (6): Ben Allen, Bob Archuleta, Josh Becker, Catherine Blakespear, Monique Limón, Akilah Weber Pierson
Official motion wording
3rd Reading AB1061 Quirk-Silva et al. By Wiener
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov
September 8, 2025 — Concurrence vote
Passed · 46 yes · 18 no · 16 other
Yes (46): Dawn Addis, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Patrick Ahrens, David Alvarez, Joaquin Arambula, Jasmeet Bains, Steve Bennett, Marc Berman, Mia Bonta, Isaac Bryan, Jessica Caloza, Juan Carrillo, Celeste Rodriguez, Sade Elhawary, Mike Fong, Jesse Gabriel, Robert Garcia, Mike Gipson, Matt Haney, John Harabedian, Corey Jackson, Ash Kalra, Maggy Krell, Alex Lee, Josh Lowenthal, Mark González, Tina McKinnor, Michelle Rodriguez, Liz Ortega, Darsh Patel, Sharon Quirk-Silva, James Ramos, Rhodesia Ransom, Robert Rivas, Chris Rogers, Pilar Schiavo, Nick Schultz, LaShae Sharp-Collins, José Solache, Esmeralda Soria, Catherine Stefani, Avelino Valencia, Chris Ward, Buffy Wicks, Lori Wilson, Anamarie Ávila Farías
No (18): Tasha Boerner, Leticia Castillo, Phillip Chen, Laurie Davies, Carl DeMaio, Diane Dixon, Stan Ellis, James Gallagher, Heather Hadwick, Joshua Hoover, Natasha Johnson, Ali Macedo, Al Muratsuchi, Joe Patterson, Kate Sanchez, Tri Ta, David Tangipa, Greg Wallis
Other / no vote recorded (16): Juan Alanis, Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, Blanca Rubio, Lisa Calderon, Damon Connolly, Heath Flora, Gregg Hart, Jacqui Irwin, Jeff Gonzalez, Tom Lackey, Stephanie Nguyen, Blanca Pacheco, Diane Papan, Gail Pellerin, Cottie Petrie-Norris, Rick Zbur
Official motion wording
AB 1061 Quirk-Silva Concurrence in Senate Amendments
Official record: leginfo.legislature.ca.gov