In Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition v. City of Laguna Beach (August 31, 2026, G065723) __ Cal.App.5th __, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the City of Laguna Beach failed to comply with CEQA before revoking an allegedly outdated 1981 inventory of historic properties. The court reasoned that the properties listed in the inventory are presumptive historical resources that could be adversely affected if the inventory were eliminated. Thus, the court concluded that the city’s preparation and use of a negative declaration, which did not include a case-by-case assessment of each listed property, did not satisfy CEQA’s requirements.
Key Takeaway
- Eliminating or modifying an adopted local register of presumptively historical resources may cause significant environmental impacts requiring analysis and mitigation under CEQA.
Background
The city developed its inventory of historic properties in 1981 based on a historic survey performed the previous year. Shortly after, the city used the inventory to develop the Historic Resources Element of its General Plan. According to the city, however, the inventory became outdated and unreliable over the following decades.
By 1989, the city established a separate historic property register, on which property owners may voluntarily list their historic properties. The register, which remains in use today, includes many properties that are not listed in the 1981 inventory. By 2020, the city determined that the 1981 inventory was no longer a reliable indicator of a property’s historical significance, and thus amended its Historic Resource Element to remove all references to the inventory. To comply with CEQA, the city prepared a negative declaration, which concluded that the properties listed in the nearly 40-year-old inventory did not meet statutory requirements for presuming historical significance.
Several petitioners filed suit, arguing that the city was required to prepare an EIR for the Historic Resource Element amendment. The trial court disagreed, and the petitioners appealed.
Appellate Decision
The appellate court reversed, concluding that revoking the 1981 inventory could result in significant adverse effects to presumptive historical resources, and thus the city’s reliance on a negative declaration was insufficient under CEQA.
Initially, the court briefly concluded that the city’s approval of the Historic Resource Element amendment was a “project” under CEQA because it could lead to physical environmental changes. The court reasoned that the city’s revocation of the 1981 inventory would eliminate some protections for listed properties, thereby “making it reasonably foreseeable at least some of them will be physically altered in the future.”
Additionally, the court concluded that the properties listed in the 1981 inventory are statutorily presumed to be historical resources because they were formally “recognized as historically significant by a local government” when the city approved the inventory in the early 1980s. While that statutory presumption is rebuttable where a preponderance of the evidence shows that a particular resource is not historically significant, the court held that the city could not meet this burden of proof without performing an “individualized analysis” of each listed property. Because the city focused more generally on the “perceived inaccuracies” of the inventory as a whole, the court concluded that the city had not overcome the presumption for any individual listed resource.
Thus, the appellate court reversed the judgment and directed the trial court to issue a writ requiring the City to set aside its approval and comply with CEQA by preparing an EIR or a mitigated negative declaration.