Local government: historical property.
Summary
(1) Existing law authorizes an owner of any qualified historical property, as defined, to contract with the legislative body of a city, county, or city and county, to restrict the use of the property in exchange for lowered assessment values. Existing law requires contracts under these provisions to include, among other things, where applicable, a provision for the periodic examination of the interior and exterior of the premises by the assessor, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the State Board of Equalization whenever necessary, and a provision that requires the owner to notify the Office of Historic Preservation of the contract. This bill would instead require these contracts, where applicable, to include an inspection of the interior and exterior of the premises by the city, county, or city and county prior to a new agreement, and every 5 years thereafter. This bill would delete from the list of required contract provisions the requirement that the owner notify the Office of Historic Preservation, and would instead require that the contract include a provision that requires the owner to record the contract with the county in which the property is located. (2) Existing law authorizes the legislative body to, upon entering into a contract, require that the property owner, as a condition to entering into the contract, pay a fee not to exceed the reasonable cost of administering this program. This bill would, instead, require that the fee shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service pursuant to this article for which the fee is charged. (3) Existing law specifies that the initial contract term is 10 years and provides that on the anniversary date of the contract, a year is automatically added to the initial term of the contract unless notice of nonrenewal is given, as specified. This bill would also require each contract to provide that after 5 years, and every 5 years thereafter, the legislative body of the local agency shall require an inspection to be conducted, by a party appointed by the legislative body, to determine the owner's continued compliance with the contract. (4) Existing law authorizes the legislative body to cancel a contract if the legislative body determines that the owner has breached any of the conditions of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property, and authorizes the legislative body or any landowner to, as an alternative to canceling the contract, bring any action in court necessary to enforce a contract, including, but not limited to, an action to enforce the contract by specific performance or injunction. This bill would require the legislative body to either cancel the contract or bring an action in court to enforce the contract, if the legislative body determines that the owner has breached any of the conditions of the contract or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified historical property. This bill would also provide that, as an alternative to canceling the contract, a landowner that is a party to the contract may bring any action in court necessary to enforce the contract.
Bill status
signed
all 5 stages cleared
Introduction
Feb 2011
Committee Review
Aug 2011
Assembly Passage
May 2011
Senate Passage
Aug 2011
Signed into Law
Sep 2011
Introduced Feb 16, 2011
Signed Sep 7, 2011
Floor votes · Assembly May 23, 2011
How they voted
47–18
Passed · 5 other
Total votes 70
May 23, 2011
D
Democratic44
95% Yea
R
Republican26
69% Nay
Vote distribution
All Yea
All Nay
Mixed
No data
Full legislative history
Actions timeline
Total actions
31
Key actions
9
Committee
12
Amendments
3
Sep 7, 2011
Signed into law
Approved by the Governor.
legislature
Aug 22, 2011
Lower · Passed
Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 53. Noes 22. Page 2494.).
lower
Aug 18, 2011
Introduced
In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after August 20 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77.
lower
Jul 11, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Be placed on second reading file pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8.
upper
Jun 27, 2011
Upper · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 3.) (June 22).
upper
Jun 8, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on GOV. & F.
upper
Jun 2, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on N.R. & W. and GOV. & F.
upper
May 23, 2011
Assembly · Passed
Assembly Vote: pass (47-18-5)
assembly
May 18, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 18).
lower
May 5, 2011
Committee
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (May 4). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
lower
Apr 26, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Apr 7, 2011
Lower · Passed
In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.
lower
Apr 5, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Mar 30, 2011
Committee
Re-referred to Com. on L. GOV.
lower
Mar 25, 2011
Lower · Passed
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on L. GOV. (Ayes 10. Noes 1.) (March 22).
lower
Mar 7, 2011
Committee
Referred to Coms. on W., P. & W. and L. GOV.
lower
Feb 17, 2011
Lower · Passed
From printer. May be heard in committee March 19.
lower
1 primary · 0 co-sponsors
Sponsors
Role
Legislator
Party
State
District
P
Ben Hueso
DDemocratic
Ask Maddy
·
AI policy assistant
Ask Maddy about AB 654
Scope: CA
Hi! I can help you understand AB 654. What would you like to know?
Try one of these
i
Maddy answers using official bill text and legislative records. Always verify before sharing.
Sources cited inline