California Governor Gavin Newsom signed two major bills into law this year aimed to accelerate housing development. Largely overlooked in coverage of these changes are the new challenges they pose for community preservation by limiting what qualifies as a historic resource.
Under Assembly Bill (AB) 130 and Senate Bill (SB) 79, there are no requirements to identify resources (usually structures and districts) as eligible for historic designation during the environmental review of a proposed project. Only those resources designated or listed prior to submittal of the application (or no later than January 1, 2025, under SB 79) can be considered historic resources for the purposes of assessing environmental impacts. This new framework marks a significant change in how historic resources are considered during environmental review and opens the door for local governments to play a more active role in shaping their preservation priorities.
How It Typically Works
Historic resources identification in California begins by verifying if the resource is old enough (at least 45 years) for consideration. It is then evaluated against criteria in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or the local government’s historic resource registry (see sidebar). If the regulatory body determines the resource meets these criteria (i.e., is eligible for designation), it is considered a historic resource for the purpose of environmental review, and the applicant must assess and mitigate potential impacts before project approval. In traditional applications of CEQA, property owners who wish to redevelop are often frustrated when environmental review requires an assessment of eligibility as described above. Under CEQA, being eligible is given equal standing as being designated.
However, official designation of a historic resource is usually pursued separately from environmental review and often only to access financial incentives, such as the Mills Act (local) or tax credits (state or federal). These designations are usually made in the absence of a project and serve as an honorific recognition of the history of the resource to invite positive attention.
Lengthy and Complicated Process
The designation process typically involves preparation of detailed documentation, applications, public review, and often fees, which can result in a lengthy timeline from nomination to designation. Designation is typically initiated by the property owner, and in many municipalities, owner permission is required to officially designate the resource. If a property owner is contemplating redevelopment, the owner-permission provision guarantees that the property would not be designated because of the potential additional review requirements associated with modifications to the designated resource. As a result, historic resource registries are populated with designated resources and only represent a very small percentage of eligible historic resources in any given jurisdiction.
This challenge is compounded by the fact that many jurisdictions rely on historic resource surveys that are 20 years or more out of date, with few entities voluntarily undertaking comprehensive or targeted surveys that identify potential historic resources in the absence of a project. Because much of California’s built environment has been constructed after 1950, most resources did not become eligible for historic consideration until this century, which means most of the potential historic resources have yet to be identified.[1] Under the new class of streamlining legislation, such as AB 130 and SB 79, these buildings can now be demolished without any further consideration.
Possible Solutions
Local governments could take this opportunity to examine their historic registry requirements and procedures. Can the existing designation models be adapted to reflect the new pressures imposed by streamlining? If the process for approving projects is shorter, faster, and simpler, then should the same sensibilities be applied to the designation process? Or can alternative procedures be developed to enable historic resource review, determination, and designation as part of the permitting process?
One solution is to exempt certain property types from historic review or allow for streamlined evaluations for properties that do not pass a predetermined set of screening criteria. This could lessen the burden of proof for properties that have been extensively modified or altered, are common, or that lack architectural distinction. This solution could encourage development on parcels with older buildings that would not meet the eligibility criteria.
Alternatively, jurisdictions could focus limited financial resources on developing historic context statements combined with targeted surveys to identify potential historic resources in likely development zones, evaluate them to professional standards, then designate them instead of simply determining they meet the criteria for designation.
For those jurisdictions that do not have local historic resource registries, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) must lead the streamlining. Perhaps there should be a separate class of historic resources that qualifies for a streamlined review process. This could involve a two-part process: first, confirming the resource meets the qualifications and gets a provisional designation; second, completing additional documentation or deliberation to make the provisional designation permanent. Another option might be to accelerate development of statewide multiple property submissions to enable rapid documentation and designation of endangered property types.
Beyond addressing the designation process, there is opportunity here to create better incentives that encourage greater density and retain historic fabric. Establishing transfer of development rights programs to focus development in specific areas of municipalities is one option and accelerating permitting timelines is another.
Reevaluating how we identify and recognize historic resources offers an opportunity to make the process simpler and more predictable, while simultaneously avoiding the possibility that the recent legislative solutions for housing development acceleration will result in the silent loss of our collective history.
Interested in ways to better understand your historic resources and environmental review? ESA has a team of architectural historians, urban planners, cultural resource experts, and CEQA professionals to assist. Contact Tony Overly or Becky Urbano to learn more.
If you are looking to learn more on CEQA, permitting and compliance, or the ever-changing world of federal regulations, check out ESA’s News & Ideas for a wide range of topical discussions and information.
[1] Looking only at housing units, approximately 9,300,000 of the total 14,400,000 housing units in California were constructed before 1980 and would therefore be considered potentially historic based on age. That is nearly two-thirds of the available housing stock. (Henderson, A.R. 2021. The 40-Year Decline in California’s Housing Production. February 2021. Building Industry Association of Southern California. Available online at biasc.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/The-40-Year-Decline-in-Californias-Housing-Production-02-22-2021-A.-Henderson-for-BIASC.pdf.)
Date
November 20, 2025
