Housing developments: urban lot splits: historical resources.

Quirk-Silva, joined by coauthors Lee and Wiener, presents a framework that seeks to ministerially approve eligible two‑unit housing developments and urban lot splits while embedding protections for historic resources. The measure describes a ministerial pathway for up to two residential units in a single‑family zone, paired with occupancy and design constraints, and authorizes local agencies to adopt objective standards aimed at preserving historic value.

For two‑unit housing developments, the bill requires the parcel to lie within a city that includes urbanized areas or clusters, and to meet a set of conditions drawn from existing planning provisions. It prohibits demolition or alteration of certain housing types tied to rent restrictions, recent occupancy, or preexisting withdrawal of accommodations from rent. It prevents ministerial review if the project sits within a contributing structure in a historic district on state or local historic inventories, or within a parcel individually listed as historic, or within a landmark property. Local agencies may impose objective standards for zoning, subdivision, and design that do not preclude constructing two units or guaranteeing minimum unit sizes, while allowing modest setback adjustments in line with existing allowances. Parking may be required up to one space per unit, with exemptions near transit or car‑share options, and a percolation test is required for onsite wastewater systems under certain conditions. An occupancy term longer than 30 days is mandated for rents created under this framework, with exemptions for community land trusts or qualified nonprofits. The proposal also clarifies that a denial must be accompanied by a written set of defects and remedies within a 60‑day window, and that public hearings for coastal development permits are not required for housing developed under these provisions.

For urban lot splits, the bill similarly directs ministerial approval only if the parcel map creates no more than two new parcels of roughly equal area, with one parcel not smaller than 40 percent of the original lot. New parcels generally must each exceed 1,200 square feet unless a local ordinance lowers that minimum, and the subdivided parcel must be in a single‑family zone within a city or county that includes urbanized areas. The split must avoid demolishing or altering specified housing, including units restricted by rent, occupancy, or history, and must not affect properties designated as historic landmarks or SHRI‑listed resources. As with housing, the plan must conform to objective standards and may be subject to a local ordinance to set minimum sizes, with an option to waive certain rights‑of‑way dedications or offsite improvements as a condition of issuing the map. Uses on lots created by an urban lot split are restricted to residential uses, and an occupancy affidavit requires the applicant to intend to occupy one unit as a principal residence for at least three years, with exemptions for community land trusts and nonprofits. Rentals must exceed 30 days, and the proposal prohibits requiring nonconforming zoning corrections as a condition of ministerial approval. The measure also requires that the agency count and report the number of urban lot split applications and units in housing‑element reporting, while confirming that there shall be no more than two units on any parcel created through this authority. Parking and access provisions mirror the transit/car‑share exemptions, and a 60‑day decision window with a written commentary requirement applies to denials, alongside a prohibition on certain dedications of rights‑of‑way or offsite improvements as a condition of approval. The bill notes that implementing ordinances are not CEQA projects and that coastal development permit hearings may be bypassed under the coastal‑context provisions.

In broader terms, the legislation sits within a framework that seeks to accelerate certain forms of housing production while explicitly safeguarding historic resources and limiting regulatory redundancy. It preserves a role for local objective standards, provides a defined timeline and remedy process for ministerial decisions, and ties occupancy commitments to new units while placing emphasis on residential use and transit‑adjacent flexibility for parking. The bill characterizes its measures as a state‑mandated local program with no state reimbursement, relying on local financing mechanisms to cover new duties and reporting obligations. The practical effect will hinge on how municipalities interpret historic‑resource triggers, implement occupancy affidavits, and apply objective standards in the context of ministerial approvals.