Senate Bill (SB) 330 passed the Assembly Appropriations Committee on August 30.

It is now headed to the full Assembly for a vote.

Contact your representative today and tell them this bill is bad for preservation!

SB 330, much like SB 50 from earlier this year (currently on temporary hiatus), intends to address California’s affordable housing crisis by easing perceived land-use barriers to increase density and streamline the production of multi-family housing development statewide. 

While laudable in its intent, speeding up housing production without thoughtful planning is problematic.

It creates a blunt, one-size-fits-all approach that would override local planning and community input.

It does not recognize the diversity of development statewide, let alone throughout Greater Los Angeles.

Density, affordable housing, and preservation are not mutually exclusive.

We can and should have all of these, and through careful planning, there is ample room for these in L.A.

The Conservancy—in partnership with the California Preservation Foundation and others—works with legislators and strives to find a balance that includes safeguards for preservation.

How You Can Help

SB 330 will soon go to the full State Assembly for a vote.

Please email your State Senate representative and express your concern.

Write a letter expressing your concern.

A sample letter is provided below

Find the State Assembly Member representing your district and submit your letter to them online.

Reply to this email and let us know you submitted comments, so we can track support.

Sample Letter

Dear Assembly Member [blank],

I am writing to express strong concerns about Senate Bill 330, legislation that will potentially do harm to historic places throughout California. While housing production is a worthwhile goal, as currently written this legislation poses a serious risk to historic places.

With streamlining as its intent, SB 330 makes assumptions and imposes limitations that will put historic resources at risk. Because most historic resources are not formally designated or landmarked, potential resources could be missed or omitted during the accelerated approval process. Without a safeguard in place, historic places would be in jeopardy.

SB 330 should clarify that streamlining the process does not eliminate the obligation of a local government to assess impacts on historic resources under their own ordinances or the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), even when a resource is not identified until later.

Thank you and please do not support SB 330 unless there are adequate safeguards for California's historic resources.

Sincerely,

[your name]

Contact Information for Los Angeles-area members of the Assembly:

Christy Smith: 38th Assembly District

Luz Rivas: 39th Assembly District

Chris Holden: 41st Assembly District

Laura Friedman: 43rd Assembly District

Jacqui Irwin: 44th Assembly District

Jesse Gabriel: 45th Assembly District

Adrin Nazarian: 46th Assembly District

Blanca E. Rubio: 48th Assembly District

Ed Chau: 49th Assembly District

Richard Bloom: 50th Assembly District

Wendy Carrillo: 51st Assembly District

Freddie Rodriguez: 52nd Assembly District

Miguel Santiago: 53rd Assembly District

Sydney Kamlager-Dove: 54th Assembly District

Ian Calderon: 57th Assembly District

Reginal B. Jones Sawyer: 59th Assembly District

Autumn Burke: 62nd Assembly District

Anthony Rendon, 63rd Assembly District

Mike Gipson: 64th Assembly District

Al Muratsuchi: 66th Assembly District

Patrick O'Donnell: 70th Assembly District

Thank you for your support on this issue!

Learn more about SB 330 »