DISCUSSION
An EOC is a central command and control facility responsible for carrying out emergency management at a strategic level in an emergency situation. The existing EOC does not meet the City’s needs to provide essential public safety services.
Background and Project Need
The 2019 Wildfire Mitigation and Fire Safety Report contains a recommended action for staff to identify a suitable off-site location to serve as an alternative EOC.
In 2022, City staff studied suitable locations within city limits for a standalone EOC to replace the existing EOC. With the City’s acquisition of the property at 30516 Coast Highway, public safety departments identified relocation of the EOC to the CRC as the ideal solution. The property provides the necessary EOC space, can be easily secured, and supports the required technological capabilities.
On February 10, 2026, the City Council received a presentation from staff on options for a fully equipped EOC either at City Hall, by expanding the first floor and remodeling the second floor, or at the CRC. City Council directed staff to establish the EOC at the CRC.
Renovation and Generator Bid Process and Contractor Selection The EOC Relocation and CRC Generator scope of work includes the remodel of two classrooms in the CRC to be converted into a Training Room, Conference Room, and EOC. The project also consists of installation of an emergency generator for the facility.
Staff completed a public bid process for the project in accordance with the California Public Contract Code requirements. On October 30, 2025, six bids were received. The following is a summary of the bids sorted by bid amount:
Table of Bid Results
Bidder Bid Amount
1. Triangle DeCon Services, Inc. $989,000
2. SFS Constructors & Builders, Inc. dba Laguna
Construction & Builder)
$1,274,560
3. HMF Construction Inc. $1,343,430
4. Newbuild Construction and Restoration, Inc. $1,513,427
5. MLC Constructors $1,626,535
6. Minako America Corporation $2,085,000
Following a review of bids, staff determined the low bidder, Triangle DeCon Services, Inc., is qualified, properly licensed, and its bid was determined to be responsive and responsible. Triangle DeCon Services, Inc. has completed similar building renovation projects for the City of Newport Beach, the City of Corona, and the Los Angeles County Office of Education. Staff recommends that the contract be awarded to Triangle DeCon Services, Inc. in the amount of $989,000.
2 of 132
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR EOC RELOCATION & CRC GENERATOR
PROJECT
February 24, 2026
It is also recommended that funding be provided to cover change orders due to unforeseen conditions. These costs are not expected to exceed $148,000; therefore, it is recommended that the City Manager be authorized to approve change orders for unforeseen circumstances in the amount not to exceed $148,000. Construction is anticipated to begin in April 2026 and be completed by July 2026.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The total estimated cost for the project is $1,137,000, which includes the base contract amount of $989,000 and an additional $148,000 contingency for unforeseen circumstances.
There is an available budget of $398,000 for the EOC Relocation & CRC Generator project. Supplemental funding of $739,000 is needed to cover construction contract costs and contingencies. Below is a breakdown of the project costs.
Table of Project Costs
Description Expenditures
Construction Contract $989,000
Construction Contingency $148,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $1,137,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING $398,000
SURPLUS/(DEFICIENCY) ($739,000)
Staff is requesting City Council approval to appropriate $739,000 from the Wildfire Mitigation & Fire Safety Fund (#141) to the Capital Improvement Fund (#116) and to authorize the transfer of $150,000 currently budgeted in the Fire Department Office & Equipment account for the EOC within the General Fund to the Capital Improvement Fund, thereby consolidating all project-related expenditures into a single fund; upon approval of these actions, the total project budget will be $1,137,000 and the project will be fully funded within the Capital Improvement Fund. The project will be funded from the following sources:
Fund Account Amount Description
Wildfire
Mitigation & Fire
Safety Fund
1410000T-59616 $739,000 Supplemental funding from
unallocated Wildfire Fund balance.
Fire Dept Office
& Equipment
1102401C-80010 $150,000 EOC Furniture & Equipment
CIP Fund 6163130C-81000-C2603 $248,000 EOC Relocation & CRC Generator If the appropriation is approved, then the available fund balance in the City’s Wildfire Mitigation & Fire Safety Fund will be reduced from $2,381,000 to $1,642,000. 3 of 132
AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR EOC RELOCATION & CRC GENERATOR
PROJECT
February 24, 2026
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COUNCIL GOALS
This project supports the City Council’s Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness priority by enhancing the City’s emergency response capabilities and ensuring continuity of operations during wildfire events, power outages, and other disasters. Relocation of the EOC to a hardened facility with backup power improves operational resilience and aligns with the City’s Wildfire Mitigation and Fire Safety initiatives.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 because it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the recommended action meets the exemption because the work involves renovation of an existing public facility with no expansion of use as existing public facilities will merely be converted to EOC use. There will be interior alterations such as partitions and electrical conveyances. Upon taking the recommended action, City staff will cause to be filed within five calendar days a notice of exemption with the County.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Construction Contract (Pgs. 5-8)
Submitted By:
.Mark McAvoy Approved: .David A Kiff
Mark McAvoy, Director of Public
Works & Utilities
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Alpha Santos-Guinto, Project Manager Pierre Sawaya, Capital Program Manager Thomas Perez, City Engineer
Sarah Limones, Emergency Operations Coordinator
Niko King, Fire Chief
Michelle Bannigan, Finance Director
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
4 of 132
Construction Contract (rev. 2/20/19) Agreement No.
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF
EOC RELOCATION & CRC GENERATOR (C2603 & C1710)
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
THIS Agreement, made and entered into this day of , 2026, by and between CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and Triangle DeCon Services, Inc., Contractor's License No. 1059471, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR,"
WITNESSETH:
That the CITY and the CONTRACTOR, for the consideration hereinafter stated, mutually agree as follows:
1. The complete Agreement includes all of the contract documents, which are incorporated herein by this reference, to wit: Notice Inviting Bids, Instructions to Bidders, Bid Form and Proposal to the City of Laguna Beach, Standard Provisions, General Provisions, Special Provisions, Drawings, Plans, Performance Bond, Labor and Material Bond, Certificate of Insurance, this Agreement and all modifications and amendments thereto. The Agreement documents are complementary, and that which is required by one shall be as binding as if required by all. In the event of any discrepancy among Agreement documents, precedence shall be determined as specified in Section 3-7.2 of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction.
2. In the performance of the services under the Agreement, CONTRACTOR shall be, and is, an independent contractor, and is not an agent or employee of the CITY. The CITY shall not in any way or for any purpose become, or be deemed to be, a partner of CONTRACTOR in its business or otherwise, or a joint venturer, or a member of any joint enterprise with CONTRACTOR.
CONTRACTOR shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its agents or employees are agents or employees of the CITY. The CONTRACTOR has and shall retain the right to exercise full control and supervision of the services, and full control over the employment, direction, compensation and discharge of all persons assisting CONTRACTOR in the performance of required services. CONTRACTOR shall be solely responsible and hold the CITY harmless for all matters relating to the payment of CONTRACTOR’s employees, including compliance with Social Security, withholding and all other regulations governing such matters.
Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of CONTRACTOR’s employees shall, at any time, or in any way, be entitled to any sick leave, vacation, retirement or other fringe benefits from the CITY; and neither the CITY nor any of its employees shall be paid by the CITY at the rate of time and one-half for working in excess of forty hours in any one week or more than eight hours in any one day. Neither CONTRACTOR nor any of CONTRACTOR’s employees shall be included in the competitive service, have any property right to any position, or any of the rights an employee may have in the event of termination of this Agreement.
Attachment 1
5 5 of 132
Construction Contract (rev. 2/20/19) Agreement No.
3. CONTRACTOR shall perform everything required to be performed, shall provide and furnish all the labor, materials, necessary tools, expendable equipment, and all utility and transportation services required for the following work of improvements: EOC RELOCATION & CRC GENERATOR (C2603 & C1710) all in accordance with bidders proposal dated October 30, 2025, and the Agreement documents.
4. CONTRACTOR agrees to perform all the said work and furnish all the said materials at its own cost and expense, such as are set forth in the specifications to be furnished by the CITY, necessary to construct and complete in a good workmanlike and substantial manner and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer of the CITY, the work hereinafter set forth in accordance with the plans and the specifications therefor adopted by the CITY and as prepared by the following: COAR Design Group.
In compliance with Public Contracts Code, Chapter 4, Section 12169 and Section 12213, CITY requires the CONTRACTOR to provide, prior to final payment by CITY, a certification in writing of the minimum, or the exact, percentage of recycled content in the products used in the performance of the work of improvement.
5. CITY agrees to pay and CONTRACTOR agrees to accept in full payment for this work of improvement above agreed to be performed, the stipulated sum of NINE HUNDRED EIGHTY NINE THOUSAND Dollars ($989,000).
CITY agrees to make monthly payments and final payment in accordance with the method set forth in the specifications and other Agreement documents.
CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement involves a project specified in Section 9203 of the California Public Contract Code with a Contract price that exceeds five thousand dollars ($5,000), City will withhold five percent (5%) of the Contract price until the Notice of Completion is issued and recorded.
6. CONTRACTOR agrees to commence construction of the work provided for herein within Ten (10) working days after the date of Notice to Proceed, and to continue in a diligent and workmanlike manner without interruption, and to complete the construction thereof within FORTY FIVE (45) consecutive working days from the date of Notice to Proceed.
7. Time is of the essence of this Agreement, and it is agreed that it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to ascertain the extent of actual loss or damage, which the CITY will sustain by reason of any delay in the performance of this Agreement. It is, therefore, agreed that CONTRACTOR will pay as liquidated damages to the CITY the following sum: Five Hundred ($500.00) for each day's delay beyond the time herein prescribed for finishing work. If liquidated damages are not paid, as designated by the CITY, the CITY may deduct the amount thereof from any money due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement in addition to any other remedy available to CITY. The CONTRACTOR shall not be assessed liquidated damages for any delay caused by the failure of a public utility to relocate or remove an existing utility required for the performance of this Agreement so long as such failure is not caused by CONTRACTOR’S breach of its obligations hereunder.
8. CONTRACTOR shall pay, and will require all of its subcontractors to pay, all employees on said work a salary or wage at least equal to the prevailing salary or wage established for such work as 6 6 of 132
Construction Contract (rev. 2/20/19) Agreement No.
set forth in the wage determinations and wage standards applicable to this work, a copy of which is on file in the Public Works office. Travel and subsistence pay shall be paid in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.1, no subcontractor may be listed on a bid proposal for any work related to the Project unless registered with the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Furthermore, Contractor is hereby notified that no subcontractor may be awarded a contract for any work related to the Project unless registered with the DIR. Pursuant to Labor Code section 1771.4, Contractor is hereby notified that the Project is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. Contractor will maintain and will require all subcontractors to maintain valid and current DIR Public Works Contractor registration during the term of this Construction Services Agreement. Contractor shall notify the City in writing immediately, and in no case more than twenty-four (24) hours, after receiving any information that Contractor’s or any of its subcontractor’s DIR registration status has been suspended, revoked, expired, or otherwise changed.
9. CONTRACTOR will forfeit to the CITY, as a penalty, Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each calendar day or portion thereof for each worker paid (either by him or any subcontractors under him) less than the prevailing rate described above on the work provided for in this Agreement, all in accordance with Section 1775 of the Labor Code of the State of California.
10. In the performance of this Agreement, not more than eight (8) hours shall constitute a day's work and not more than forty (40) hours constitute any one calendar week, and the CONTRACTOR will not require more than eight (8) hours of labor in a day or more than forty (40) hours of labor in a week from any person employed by CONTRACTOR hereunder, except as provided in the Labor Code of the State of California. CONTRACTOR will conform to Article 3, Chapter 1, Part 7 (Sections 1810, et. seq.) of the Labor Code of the State of California, and it is agreed that the CONTRACTOR will forfeit to the CITY as a penalty the sum of Two Hundred Dollars ($200) for each worker employed in the execution of this Contract by the CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor for each calendar day or calendar week during which any worker is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) and forty (40) hours, respectively, in violation of said article.
11. CONTRACTOR, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies: "I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workers’ Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this AGREEMENT."
CONTRACTOR further agrees to require all subcontractors to carry Workers’ Compensation Insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California.
12. CONTRACTOR will, prior to the execution of this Agreement, furnish two bonds approved by the CITY, one in the amount of One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price, to guarantee the faithful performance of the work, and one in the amount of One Hundred Percent (100%) of the Contract price to guarantee payment of all claims for labor and materials furnished. This Agreement shall not become effective until such bonds are supplied to and approved by the CITY.
7 7 of 132
Construction Contract (rev. 2/20/19) Agreement No.
13. If any action or arbitration is filed by either party to enforce or determine rights under this Agreement or any other Agreement document, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys' fees in addition to any other relief stated by the Court or arbitrator.
14. CONTRACTOR certifies that each and every one of its employees, and every employee of its subcontractors, is not “ineligible” as the term is defined in Labor Code section 1777.1.
15. In entering into this Agreement, the Contractor or subcontractor to supply goods, services or materials pursuant to this Agreement offers and agrees to assign to the City all rights, title and interest in and to all causes of action it may have under section 4 of the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.
Sec. 15) or under the Cartwright Act (Chapter 2 (commencing with section 16700) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professional Code), arising from purchases of goods, services or materials pursuant to the Contract or subcontracts. This assignment shall be made and become effective at the time CITY tenders final payment to CONTRACTOR, without further acknowledgment by the parties.
16. CONTRACTOR acknowledges and agrees that if this Agreement involves a dollar amount greater than or a number of working days greater than that specified in Labor Code Section 1777.5, then the provisions of Labor Code Section 1777.5 govern this Agreement. It shall be CONTRACTOR’S responsibility to become fully acquainted and ensure compliance with Labor Code Section 1777.5 for all apprenticeable occupations.
17. CONTRACTOR acknowledges the importance of child and family support obligations and shall fully comply with all applicable state and federal laws relating to child and family support enforcement, including but not limited to disclosure of information and compliance with earnings assignment orders, as provided in Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 5200) of Part 5 of Division 9 of the Family Code. CONTRACTOR further acknowledges that, to the best of its knowledge, it has fully complied with the earnings assignment order of all employees and has provided the names of all new employees to the New Hire Registry maintained by the Employment Development Department.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Contractor, the City Manager and City Clerk of the City have executed this AGREEMENT pursuant to the City Council action of the day and year first above written.
Signature:
Name:
Title:
Company:
ATTEST:
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
A Municipal Corporation
_________________________
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
Dave Kiff, City Manager
8 8 of 132
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
BUSINESS
10 SUBJECT: UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST
FOR DIRECTION BASED ON A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM
CITY-HIRED HISTORIC CONSULTANT, ASM AFFILIATES
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and file a report on the Historic Property Evaluations Project, including the recommendations from the City-hired historic consultant, ASM Affiliates, on Task 1 of the Project relating to the evaluation of 54 properties on the Laguna Beach Local Historic Register without recorded preservation agreements;
2. Provide direction to City staff to carry out ASM Affiliates’ recommendations for Task 1 of the Historic Property as follows:
a. Send letters to the property owners of thirty-two (32) properties recommended to remain on the Historic Register, outlining the option for twenty-five (25) pre-2006 properties to voluntarily record a Preservation Agreement and need for seven (7) post-2006 properties to record a Preservation Agreement. (ASM Affiliates located one (1) previously missing Preservation Agreement, reducing the outreach total from thirty-three (33) to thirty-two (32)).
b. Initiate the administrative process for six (6) properties that are recommended for removal from the Laguna Beach Historic Register, including two (2) properties that only require formal removal from the list because the delisting process has already been completed, and four (4) properties that should proceed through the formal process for consideration of delisting.
c. Initiate the administrative process to reconsider fifteen (15) properties due to the inability to access certain sites and/or the need for post-construction evaluation. If the City Council desires to incentivize these outstanding reviews by covering the cost as part of the current project, the City’s projected cost is approximately $9,000 total. Otherwise, this cost would be borne by the property owners at a later date.
3. Find the recommended actions are not a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act under Public Resources Code Section 21065 or, alternatively, that the recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under the commonsense exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
1 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
The City of Laguna Beach has undertaken a comprehensive review of its Historic Register to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and effectiveness of its historic preservation program. This project, initiated through Request for Qualifications (“RFQ”) No. CD-24-1, was awarded to ASM Affiliates (“ASM”) in early 2025.
The project encompasses two primary objectives: (1) assess 54 properties listed on the Historic Register without recorded Preservation Agreements to determine their ongoing eligibility and the need for such agreements; and (2) develop a streamlined system for evaluating permit applications for properties not on the Historic Register to assess potential historic significance under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).
The initial task of the project, which examined the 54 identified properties, has been completed, and the resulting report is included as Attachment 1. The report describes the project’s current status and summarizes key findings and recommendations, including recommendations on outreach to affected property owners. The proposed outreach would inform owners about the benefits of Historic Register listing, resolve the issue of missing Preservation Agreements, and support administrative updates such as delisting or reclassifications. Task 2, which will establish a permit application procedure for evaluating historic resources, is underway.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City’s Historic Preservation Program, established through ordinances adopted in 1989 and updated in 1995, 2006, and 2022, serves to protect and promote Laguna Beach’s distinctive architectural and cultural heritage. The program includes the Historic Register, which previously classified properties as “E” (Exceptional), “K” (Key), or “C” (Contributive). This classification system was discontinued in 2022 with the implementation of Ordinance No. 1670, which transitioned the City’s local significance evaluations toward the California Register of Historical Resources criteria (Criteria 1 through 4) to ensure consistency with CEQA. Preservation Agreements, which document property owners’ commitments to maintain historic integrity in exchange for incentives such as fee waivers, parking waivers, and setback flexibility, became a requirement for all new designations beginning in 2006. Such agreements were voluntary prior to 2006, even for properties listed on the Historic Register.
In Laguna Beach, the Historic Register is a key tool for identifying and protecting historically significant properties. However, 54 properties listed on the Historic Register lacked preservation agreements, which are important for the City’s review of projects and enforcement of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards.
The City recognizes the need to improve its procedures for evaluating properties that may qualify as historic resources, particularly when reviewing permit applications for development or alterations, in order to address local concerns and ensure compliance with CEQA guidelines for the protection of historic resources. The goal is to ensure that historical significance is properly assessed while streamlining the permit review process.
A. ASM Affiliates and the Historic Property Evaluation Project
1. The Contract
As such, in late 2024, the City issued RFQ No. CD-24-1 to engage a qualified consultant for a comprehensive review of properties on the City’s Historic Register and developing a system for evaluating 2 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
permit applications. ASM was selected based on its extensive experience in historic evaluations, surveys, and compliance with local, state, and federal standards, including CEQA, the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”), and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The contract (Attachment 3) was originally 3 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
structured for a six-month timeline, and a subsequent extension was issued in October 2025 to allow additional time for completion. (Attachment 4)
The scope of services, as outlined in the contract between the City and ASM, include:
• Reviewing historical data and documentation for the 54 properties without Preservation Agreements.
• Conducting field surveys to assess current condition and integrity. • Researching archival records to determine why agreements are missing and recommending next steps (e.g., remain on Register, remove, or reconsider). • Collaborating with City staff to develop thresholds and processes for CEQA-compliant permit reviews for non-listed properties.
• Streamlining overall historic resource evaluation to enhance efficiency and compliance.
Task 1 of the project focused on the first, second, and third objectives, involving archival research, field assessments, and analysis of the 54 properties. Attachment 1, ASM's report titled "Phase I: Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California" (dated September 2025), provides detailed findings and recommendations.
2. Project Status and Completed Tasks
Task 1 is complete, with ASM having:
• Reviewed historical data, including the 1981 Historic Resources Inventory, City archives (e.g., permit records, meeting minutes, and prior evaluations), and property-specific documentation. • Conducted field surveys in July and August 2025 to assess current integrity, visibility, and alterations.
• Analyzed the history of the City's preservation ordinances (1989, 1995, 2006, 2022) to contextualize why agreements are missing, primarily because 85% of the properties (46 out of 54) were designated before the 2006 requirement.
• Identified patterns showing that, prior to 2006, Preservation Agreements were typically recorded only when applicants pursued historic preservation incentives. • Categorized recommendations for each property into the following 10 categories based upon integrity, administrative history, and owner feedback:
o Categories 1 and 2: Properties listed in the LB Register and officially removed. o Category 3: Properties listed in the LB Register that have been demolished and replaced with new construction.
o Category 4: Property with a request for removal but still listed. 4 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
o Category 5: Properties currently under construction.
o Categories 6 and 7: Properties which warrant reconsideration. o Category 8: Properties obscured from view.
o Category 9: Properties listed in the LB Register prior to the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance.
o Category 10: Properties listed in the LB Register after the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance.
ASM’s report on Task 1 and ASM’s findings with respect to the above-mentioned categories is included as Attachment 1. (See pp. 27-30 of 118 for findings and recommendations.) Key findings from ASM's analysis:
• 33 Properties Recommended to Remain on the Register (Category 9): Of these, a portion (25) were designated prior to 2006, retain sufficient integrity, and do not require Preservation Agreements (considered "grandfathered" since they predate the requirement for an executed agreement). Owners of these properties could be encouraged to voluntarily record agreements in order to qualify their properties for historic preservation incentives. The remaining properties (8) were designated post2006, retain sufficient integrity, and do require Preservation Agreements. Seven of these post-2006 properties are currently missing Preservation Agreements. • 6 Properties Recommended for Removal (Categories 1-3): This group includes two properties with officially terminated agreements or prior removals (860 Wendt Terrace, 362 Brooks Street), and four properties that have been demolished or heavily altered (494 Brooks Street, 234 Forest Avenue, 2699 Solana Way, 2713 Victoria Drive). These cases reflect either administrative oversights or a loss of integrity.
• 15 Properties Recommended for Reconsideration (Categories 4-8): This group includes properties currently under construction (e.g., 387 Oak Street, 2616 Queda Way, 2688 Glenneyre Street), with questionable integrity or alterations (e.g., 31672-31674 Coast Hwy, 31946 Virginia Way), properties obscured from view (e.g., 676 Bluebird Canyon Drive, 1 Rockledge Road), and properties with prior requests for removal/reclassification (e.g., 590 N. Coast Highway, 415 Aster Street).
Additional, seven properties designated since 2006 are missing required agreements (Category 10:
31544 Eagle Rock Way, 206-212 North Coast Highway, 625 Seaview Street, 586 & 590 St. Ann’s Drive, 761 Wilson Street, 631 Virginia Park Drive, 1745 Catalina Street).
Of the 54 properties reviewed, 46 were designated prior to the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Only seven properties, designated after the 2006 ordinance adoption and lacking Preservation Agreements, are considered out of compliance. Feedback gathered from property owners during the field survey process reflected a range of perspectives, from strong support to disinterest or opposition, offering useful insights for future outreach and engagement efforts.
5 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
In-Progress and Future Tasks
Outreach efforts responding to recommendations in the initial report are proposed to begin immediately upon Council direction. Staff is specifically requesting that the City Council review the attached report, consider its recommendations, and direct staff to take the following actions, consistent with the recommendations in the report:
• Send letters to owners of the 33 “remain on register” properties (Category 9). o Pre-2006: notifying them of their status, outlining available benefits (e.g., fee waivers, variances, Mills Act tax relief), and encouraging voluntary Preservation Agreements. These properties would remain on the City’s Historic Register, with or without an executed Preservation Agreement.
o Post-2006: contacting owners of the 7 post-2006 properties (Category 10) to discuss recording required agreements, highlighting available incentives and compliance obligations. Owners who choose not to enter into an agreement will remain on the local register but will not be eligible for City historic preservation incentives, which are offered only to those who execute and comply with such agreements. • Initiate administrative clean-up for the 6 removal properties, including updates to the master list and formal delisting, where appropriate.
• Coordinate with the City regarding the 15 reconsideration properties, which may include scheduling reviews for reclassification, post-construction evaluations, or access to sites currently obscured.
There is an opportunity to incentivize the outstanding reviews for the 15 reconsideration properties, if the City Council would like to consider funding these reviews now, under this City-funded project. Based on a preliminary estimate, the projected cost to the City would be approximately $9,000 total. If these reviews are done at a later date, the costs would be borne by the property owners.
Task 2, which involves developing CEQA thresholds for permit applications (e.g., triggers for historical resource evaluations and discretionary historic resource determinations), is underway. This task will include collaboration with ASM to streamline processes, set evaluation criteria, and ensure compliance with local ordinances and CEQA. Staff anticipates returning to Council in spring 2026 with a draft framework.
The project schedule remains aligned with the extended contract term, which is expected to conclude in April 2026, corresponding with the anticipated completion of the work. However, if the City Council determines to fund the 15 outstanding reviews for the 15 reconsideration properties, the project schedule would extend into the summer.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The consultant contract with ASM is funded through the Department's FY 2025-2026 budget allocation for planning studies. Outreach efforts (e.g., letters, meetings) can be handled within existing Community Development Department resources.
6 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
The City Council may direct City staff to proceed with the outstanding reviews for the 15 reconsideration properties as part of the current project with ASM, with an estimated total cost to the City of $9,000. No additional appropriations are requested, and sufficient funding is available within the adopted FY 2025-26 Community Development Department budget to support the proposed contract increase.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended actions involve requesting City Council direction on outreach efforts for properties on the City’s Historic Register, which are not a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act because they are internal organizational or administrative activities of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. (Public Resources Code §21065; State CEQA Guidelines §15378(b)(5)) Here, the recommended actions are general administrative activities and do not commit the City to a specific project or result in a physical change to the environment. Instead, the actions involve a City consultant doing historic research and current day-to-day analysis to clean up administration throughout the City without authorizing any physical changes to structures or properties on the Laguna Beach Historic Register. For 33 properties, the City will send a letter to property owners either recommending or requiring recording of a preservation agreement to make the City’s process more clear.
For six properties, the City will either be administratively effectuating prior decisions on two properties that have already been delisted or will be initiating a process to consider whether delisting is warranted on four properties. For fifteen properties, the City will initiate further process to evaluate the properties on the City’s Historic Register because the City’s consultant did not have proper access to the site or additional process is needed to evaluate historic significance. Any future discretionary approval that could result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment will require the City to comply with CEQA at that time. Thus, the recommended actions are not a “project” and therefore no environmental review is required at this time.
Alternatively, the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Here, for the same reasons discussed above, the recommended actions involve organizational and administrative activities, such as outreach to certain property owners, initiating a formal delisting process, without authorizing any construction, demolition, or other activity that could result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical environmental change.
Further, these recommended actions do not commit the City to any outcome, and do not foreclose the City’s choice of alternatives or mitigation measures before complying with CEQA. Upon taking the recommended action, City staff will cause to be filed within five calendar days a notice of exemption with the County and State Clearinghouse.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Phase I Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California, ASM Affiliates Report (Pgs. 8-125)
2. Maps From Phase I Report (Figures 7-8: Recommendations for North and South Areas) (Pgs. 126-127)
3. Professional Services Agreement with ASM (Pgs. 128-160)
4. Amendment to Professional Services Agreement with ASM (Pgs. 161-162) 7 of 165
UPDATE ON HISTORIC PROPERTY EVALUATIONS PROJECT AND REQUEST FOR
DIRECTION ON OUTREACH EFFORTS FOR PROPERTIES ON THE CITY'S HISTORIC
REGISTER
February 24, 2026
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Samantha Beier, Planning Manager Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
8 of 165
Phase I Historical Analysis of
Preservations Agreements in the
City of Laguna Beach, California
ASM Project Number 48210.00
20 N. Raymond Ave., Ste 220
Pasadena, CA 91103
(626) 793-7395
Prepared for:
Samantha Beier
City of Laguna Beach
Community Development
Planning Division
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
September 2025
Prepared by:
Jacqueline Padilla-Perez, M.D.S.
Historic Preservation
Architectural Historian
Madeline Gonzales, M.A.
Architectural History
Architectural Historian
and
Shannon Davis, R.P.H.
Director of Architectural History
Attachment 1
8 9 of 165
9 10 of 165
PHASE I. HISTORICAL ANAYLSIS OF
PRESERVATION AGREEMENTS IN THE
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Samantha Beier
City of Laguna Beach
Community Development
Planning Division
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Prepared by:
.
Jacqueline Padilla-Perez, M.D.S. Historic Preservation
Architectural Historian
Madeline Gonzales, M.A. Architectural History
Architectural Historian
and
Shannon Davis, R.P.H
Director of Architectural History
ASM Affiliates
20 N. Raymond Avenue, Ste 220
Pasadena, CA 91103
(626) 793-7395
September 2025
ASM PN 48210
10 11 of 165
11 12 of 165
Table of Contents
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
1. INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Background.................................................................................................................... 1
2. LAGUNA BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION ............................................................ 5
2.1 City of Laguna Beach Historic Resource Survey & Inventory..................................................... 5
2.2 City of Laguna Beach Preservation Ordinances & Heritage Committee.................................... 7
2.3 Mills Act Program.....................................................................................................................12
2.4 Preservation Agreements ........................................................................................................13
3. SUBJECT PROPERTIES ..........................................................................................15
3.1 Assessment Methodology........................................................................................................16
3.2 Findings....................................................................................................................................19
4. RECOMMENDATIONS..........................................................................................27 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................33 APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................
APPENDIX A....................................................................................................................................... 1195 Catalina Street DPR Form ....................................................................................................
APPENDIX B .......................................................................................................................................
Timeline of History of Laguna Beach Preservation Efforts...........................................................
APPENDIX C ....................................................................................................................................... 410 St. Ann's Drive Property Records...........................................................................................
APPENDIX D....................................................................................................................................... 387 Oak St. Property Records.......................................................................................................
APPENDIX E........................................................................................................................................
Terminated Preservation Agreements.........................................................................................
APPENDIX F........................................................................................................................................
Subject Property Photos............................................................................................................... 12 13 of 165
Table of Contents
ii ASM Affiliates
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. One of Laguna Beach’s many historic properties, the 1920s Fire Station, Source: Laguna Beach Historical Society ............................................................................................................................. 1 Figure 2. Another of Laguna Beach’s many historic properties, the historic Sewer Treatment Plant, showing the original expanse of the building before the northern portion of it was demolished (City Archives, date unknown). Today, only the tower and a small section of the administrative wing of the building remain extant.................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Subject Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (North Map) ........................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 4. Subject Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (South Map) ........................................................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 5. Artistic Sketch of 466 Aster Street from “Bungalows of Laguna North” is one of many sketches created by volunteers to educate the community about Laguna Beach’s historic homes. ....................................................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 6. Coast Line News Article clipping featuring 2688 Glenneyre Street as the first property to be listed in the City of Laguna Beach Historic Register, 1990......................................................................... 7 Figure 7. Recommendations for Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (North Map).........................................................................................................................25 Figure 8. Recommendations for Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (South Map).........................................................................................................................26
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. LB Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements.......................................................................15 Table 2. Subject Property Findings ........................................................................................................................21 13 14 of 165
1. Introduction
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 1
1. INTRODUCTION
ASM Affiliates (ASM) was contracted by the City of Laguna Beach (City) to assess 54 properties (subject properties) listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register (LB Register or Historic Register) that do not have Preservation Agreements on file with the City and recorded by the Orange County Recorder’s Office. ASM was tasked with using historical data and past documentation to determine why the subject properties do not have recorded agreements as well as whether they retain sufficient integrity to remain designated in the LB Register.
This report is divided into four chapters following this introduction: project background in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 provides an overview of the history of past preservation efforts in Laguna Beach and details the various ordinances and events that led to the current system. Chapter 3 lists the subject LB Register properties missing Preservation Agreements and ASM’s methodology to locate the agreements and assess whether the properties should remain designated. Chapter 4 provides recommended next steps for the historic properties listed in the LB Register without Preservation Agreements.
Figure 1. One of Laguna Beach’s many historic properties, the 1920s Fire Station, Source: Laguna Beach Historical Society
1.1 Project Background
Beginning in the late 1970s, concerned citizens of Laguna Beach championed efforts to begin a historic preservation program in the city. Citizens and local government each had concerns about the loss of many historic buildings, which they believed tore the historic fabric that contributed to the vibrancy of the city.
The City of Laguna Beach, working with the community, created the City’s first Historic Resources Element in 1989 to provide a guideline that would assist in “promoting the preservation of its historic architectural resources” (City of Laguna Beach 2005: 1). The Historic Resources Element encompassed three primary goals:
1. To provide for the protection of historic buildings through the implementation of incentive programs specifically designed to encourage rehabilitation and preservation.
2. To assure that neighborhoods like Laguna North and Laguna South as identified by the historic survey, which have a preponderance of older homes and which greatly contribute to the village 14 15 of 165
1. Introduction
2 ASM Affiliates
atmosphere, be maintained as cohesive neighborhood units through consistency of size, scale, and character.
3. To promote community awareness of local history and historic architecture and to enhance recognition of the city’s historic role as an important art colony, second-home community, and seaside resort.
The City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element marked the establishment of a framework that could be applied to both public and private efforts for the implementation of financial incentives for the promotion of preserving historic resources. From this point forward, historic preservation was crystalized as a major component of the city’s future planning, tourism, and development goals (City of Laguna Beach 2005).
Figure 2.Another of Laguna Beach’s many historic properties, the historic Sewer Treatment Plant, showing the original expanse of the building before the northern portion of it was demolished (City Archives, date unknown).
Today, only the tower and a small section of the administrative wing of the building remain extant. 15 16 of 165
1. Introduction
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 3 Figure 3. Subject Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (North Map) 16 17 of 165
1. Introduction
4 ASM Affiliates
Figure 4. Subject Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (South Map) 17 18 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 5
2. LAGUNA BEACH HISTORIC PRESERVATION
The recognition of historic and cultural places has been an important part of American history and heritage.
The preservation of historic and cultural resources became national law in the mid-twentieth century, and amendments and legislation concerning specific historic and cultural resources are still being passed. The current legislation supporting historic preservation of historic and cultural resources at the national and state level are as follows. On October 15, 1966, United States Senate Bill 3035, the National Historic Preservation Act otherwise known as the NHPA, was signed into law. This act enabled the federal government to set standards by which historic and archaeological sites would be preserved. The California Legislature enacted the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 1970 to establish regulations for environmental review of discretionary projects and for mitigating harmful environmental impacts, including the destruction and loss of valuable historic resources. In 1975, the California State Office of Historic Preservation was established to meet the NHPA requirement for the creation of a state agency to implement provisions of the law including the preparation of a statewide historic preservation plan as well as surveys that would result in a list of historical resources. These national and statewide regulations prompted many cities to establish their own historic preservation programs inclusive of citywide surveys, historic registers, and local legislation that would safeguard their unique and valuable historic fabric.
2.1 City of Laguna Beach Historic Resource Survey & Inventory The first step in establishing a citywide historic preservation program was to develop an inventory of historic resources, which did not exist in the City of Laguna Beach prior to 1981. The City contracted with Heritage Planning Firm of Orange County to perform the survey to identify “structures within the community that are architecturally or historically significant to the city’s cultural resource base” (City of Laguna Beach 1989a: 1). The survey team consisted of paid personnel and local volunteers (City of Laguna Beach 2005: 1). In August of 1980, the extensive survey of historic properties began and was completed after a period of one year. Hal Thomas was appointed as Project Director responsible for overseeing administration and implementation of the survey. The survey itself was directed by Kathy Les, Survey Coordinator. The Laguna Beach Historical Society provided assistance with photography and documentation, in addition to having some of its members as part of the Survey Advisory Board (The Environmental Coalition of Orange County 1981). The survey was organized into three phases: I, Resource identification and community outreach (three months); II, Field survey and research (six months); III, Development of final work products (three months). A 15-member Historic Survey Advisory Board, composed of Laguna Beach residents of various backgrounds, was formed to oversee the work and data produced by the survey team. The Advisory Board held monthly meetings to review and discuss the information presented by the survey coordinator.
Figure 5. Artistic Sketch of 466 Aster Street from “Bungalows of Laguna North” is one of many sketches created by volunteers to educate the community about Laguna Beach’s historic homes. 18 19 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
6 ASM Affiliates
While the initial windshield survey included the observation of pre-1940 buildings, including residential and commercial properties, it later was decided to include only buildings constructed prior to 1936 due to what was perceived by the survey team as a “grave architectural disparity” among those constructed up until 1940 (City of Laguna Beach 2005). Additionally, the survey team observed that many of the buildings had been altered and had varying degrees of integrity. This resulted in the implementation of a threecategory classification system. While there were many extant pre-World War II buildings observed by the survey team, due to extensive remodeling, it was determined that only the buildings that retained most of their original architectural integrity would be included in the inventory. The classification system used was:
Exceptional – Buildings with this classification are outstanding historic architectural examples. Most have been recommended eligible for the National Register and those which were not may be considered for National Register status in the future. Buildings in this category are usually in excellent architectural condition and are typically unique or excellent historical and/or historical architectural examples.
Key – Buildings with this classification are very good historical architectural examples which strongly retain their original integrity. These buildings have significant architectural, historical, and/or aesthetic value and are fine period examples.
Contributive – Buildings with this classification are those which contribute to the overall character and history of the neighborhood, though they are not unique in and of themselves. The great preponderance of these buildings contribute greatly to the historic and visual fabric of Laguna Beach and are important in a more general historical architectural context. The many beach bungalows built in Laguna during the 1920s are examples of buildings in this category. While contributive buildings are not architecturally outstanding, without them the streetscape of many Laguna neighborhoods would be very different. (City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element 1989) The result of the survey was a list of 700 homes and buildings which were recorded on California State inventory forms also known as California Department of Parks and Recreation Forms (see Appendix A for an example). The properties were grouped within the “identifiable neighborhoods of common geographical location, architectural theme, and historic evolution” (City of Laguna Beach 1989a; 8). Most of the properties are located within the lower portion of the city with only a few exceptions and selected from the following twenty neighborhoods:
1. Arch Beach Heights Addition (8)
2. Victoria Beach (26)
3. Solana Way (17)
4. Rockledge Neighborhood (4)
5. Alta Vista Way and Vicinity (13)
6. South Coast Highway (23)
7. Laguna – South (230)
8. Ocean Way Vicinity (16)
9. Temple Hills Neighborhood (12)
10. El Bosque Street Neighborhood (10)
11. Ramona Way (7)
12. Park Avenue Neighborhood (20)
13. Manzanita Street Neighborhood (18)
14. Downtown Laguna (49)
19 20 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 7
15. Laguna North Neighborhood (122)
16. North Coast Highway (20)
17. Cliff Drive Vicinity (21)
18. Hillcrest Street Vicinity (17)
19. La Brea Street Vicinity (11)
20. Crescent Bay (5)
21. Laguna Canyon (51)
Figure 6. Coast Line News Article clipping featuring 2688 Glenneyre Street as the first property to be listed in the City of Laguna Beach Historic Register, 1990.
2.2 City of Laguna Beach Preservation Ordinances & Heritage Committee
1989 Historic Preservation Ordinance
Prior to 1989, a preservation ordinance did not exist in the City of Laguna Beach. Instead, the Title 14 municipal code included a “Historic Preservation” section in the Downtown Specific Plan which required the Design Review Board to “take into account the historic value of a structure as part of its design review consideration” for both residential buildings and commercial buildings located within the Local Business Professional zone, the Commercial Hotel-Motel zone, and the Downtown Specific Plan (City of Laguna Beach 1989b). There were no incentives available to assist property owners with the cost of maintenance and rehabilitation of their historic buildings. Although there was a design review requirement for alterations to all buildings, there was not a standard set of guidelines that could be applied to historic buildings.
Additionally, a historic register did not exist that could aid planning staff in identifying historic buildings that would require special attention from the Design Review Board. Code requirements for additions often posed compatibility issues for historic buildings and resulted in costs that were so high that it was more affordable for the property owner to demolish and build new rather than to preserve their building. There 20 21 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
8 ASM Affiliates
were no requirements for scale and mass of new construction buildings within largely historic neighborhoods and commercial districts which resulted in bulky new buildings that did not blend with the surrounding built environment (City of Laguna Beach 2005).
The City’s first Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted on August 15, 1989, and satisfied Goal 1 of the Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element. Additionally, it repealed the “Historic Preservation” section of the Downtown Specific Plan. An entire new chapter, 25.45, was added to the City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code, encompassing the Historic Preservation Ordinance. The General Provision of the ordinance included:
The Laguna Beach Historic Register
The Historic Preservation Ordinance established a voluntary historic register to be maintained by the City Clerk for structures identified in the historic resources inventory (as recognized per resolution 82.111) and structures identified as heritage structures in the South Laguna Specific Plan. The identified structures were eligible to apply for placement in the LB Register and noted with the classification of “E” Exceptional, “K” Key, and “C” Contributive (based on the 1981 citywide survey).
Historic Preservation Incentives
The ordinance was intended to provide incentives to owners of structures in the LB Register to maintain, preserve, and improve their historic properties. The incentives included parking variances and conditional use permits, waived fees for building permits and planning application fees for projects that preserved the historic character of the building, building code deviations that aligned with State of California Historical Building Code, additions to historic commercial buildings without having to comply with current zoning regulations or nonconformities, setback flexibility, density bonuses, and relief from other requirements generally not afforded to other building projects. Owners of properties listed in the LB Register were offered recognition of their buildings with special designation plaques.
Design Review Approval
Permits for construction, exterior alteration, enlargement or demolition of a structure listed in the LB Register were prohibited without approval by the Design Review Board during a public hearing, inclusive of the requirements set forth in section 25.45.008 Procedures for the Alteration of Historic Register Structures, 25.45.010 Procedures for Demolition, 25.45.012 Unsafe or Dangerous Conditions, 25.45.014 Illegal Demolition & Penalty for Violations. Interior modification and minor exterior alterations were exempt.
Heritage Committee
The Heritage Committee was established by the City Council with the role of serving as an advisory group in matters pertaining to historic preservation as specified within the historic preservation ordinance.
Designation Procedures
Structures in the Historic Resources Inventory list were eligible to apply for the LB Register. The designation process required a written request to the City Clerk, inclusive of an application listing all information pertaining to remodels or exterior alterations made after the properties were identified for inclusion in the Historic Resources Inventory list, which was finalized on December 21 22 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 9 21, 1982, or the South Laguna Specific Plan which was finalized September 1983. There was no fee required to file an application to the LB Register. Only the property owner was permitted to apply for the LB Register. Structures not included on the Historic Resources Inventory could apply to have their property listed in the LB Register, however, they were required to submit their application to the Heritage Committee for review and recommendation for designation.
Recommendations were to be finalized by the Director of Community Development.
Removal from the LB Register
Removal from the LB Register was subject to City Council approval with recommendation from the Heritage Committee. Removals had to take into consideration any benefits or incentives that the property owner may have received in exchange for inclusion in the LB Register, including but not limited to waived permit fees, parking variances, conditional use permits, building code deviations, zoning variances, and special recognitions. Filing fees for removal were determined by resolution of the City Council.
Formation of the Heritage Committee
On February 6, 1990, the City Council voted 4-0 to retain the existing committee structure and to add a Heritage Committee inclusive of seven members (City of Laguna Beach 1990a: 7-11). On February 20 of the same year, an election to review the applications and interview results for the appointment of members was scheduled for March 20, 1990 (City of Laguna Beach 1990b; 23). On that date, the City Council cast its votes via secret ballot, electing the following individuals as members of the City’s first Heritage Committee: Steve Crawford, Anne Frank, Trudy Grossman, Helen McPherson, Robert Meyerhof, Sharon Heath, and Beverly St. Clair. It is not known when the Heritage Committee held its first official meeting, however, a report was submitted to City Council by member Steve Crawford for discussion at the June 19, 1990, budget meeting, in which he requested $2,000 be allotted to the Heritage Committee to “help with their goals” which included making the city “aware of their existence” (City of Laguna Beach 1990c; 14).
The earliest minutes of the Heritage Committee meeting that were available in the city archives are dated August 20, 1990 (City of Laguna Beach 1990d). The minutes included approval of minutes that had been recorded at the previous meeting in June 1990. Given this information, it can be assumed that the Heritage Committee held its first meeting sometime between March 20, 1990 (the date of its appointment) and June 30, 1990, as June was the first reference of meeting minutes being recorded as well as a request for funds to City Council by an active member.
1995 Ordinance No. 1309
On November 21, 1995, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1309 which was an amendment to municipal code section 25.45.006(A) regarding granting historic preservation incentives. The changes included the following provisions:
LB Register Preservation Incentives
The stipulation for the issuance of a conditional use permit to allow for a reduction in parking was slightly revised to include “visible interiors” in addition to all exteriors, when determining the degree to which the historic character of the building is observed and/or enhanced. This applied to commercial structures with “E,” “K,” and “C” ratings and only if the interiors were integral to the historic building design.
22 23 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
10 ASM Affiliates
Procedures for the Alteration of LB Register Structures The section was revised to state that interior changes are not required to be reviewed unless they are integral to the historical building design. An additional requirement for the Heritage Committee to provide recommendation for the proposed changes to the Design Review Board of any alteration to “E” rated structures was implemented.
2006 Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance
On January 10, 2006, a revised City of Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted that included the following changes:
Design Review Approval
Previously the approval by the Design Review Board for construction, exterior alterations, enlargement, or demolition of buildings and structures was required for properties listed in the LB Register. The updated ordinance required Design Review Board approval for properties listed in the City’s Historic Inventory list as well.
Designation Procedures
This section of the ordinance was revised to require a written agreement (Preservation Agreement) as a requirement of LB Register designation. The agreement between the City and the property owner acknowledges the owner’s obligations and responsibilities to ensure preservation of the historic character of the structure.
Provisions for designation were also established for properties not included in the Historic Resources Inventory. Such properties must be at least 50 years old and meet one of the following criteria:
a. Retain their original appearance and architectural integrity using the rating system of “E,” “K,” and “C” as described in the historic resources element of the general plan.
b. Structures that most represent character, interest, or value as part of the heritage of the city.
c. Location as a site of significant historic event.
d. Identified as associated with a person or persons or groups who significantly contributed to the culture and development of the city. e. The exemplification of a particular architectural style or way of life important to the city.
f. Embodies the elements of outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials, or craftsmanship.
Additionally, as part of their consideration of a requested designation, the Heritage Committee could request information and architectural plans for any anticipated projects (such as renovations or additions) planned for the structure.
23 24 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 11 Removal from the LB Register
Either a property owner or the City can initiate the removal of a property from the LB Register and shall be subject to approval by the City Council with recommendation from the Heritage Committee.
Repayment or Restoration of Benefits/Incentives
Repayment or restoration of any utilized benefits/incentives could be required, as set forth in section 25.45.006, when (a) the property owner or the city initiates a request to remove the structure from the historic register; or (b) anytime unauthorized modifications to the historic structure are made including demolition or partial demolition of an historic structure. Additional penalty fees were added as a stipulation to the ordinance as set forth in section 25.45.014.
Building Permit and Planning Application Fees
For newly designated properties in the LB Register, prior building permits and planning application fees would be refunded if the Heritage Committee found that proposed changes preserved the historic character of the building and were consistent with approved plans prior to finalization of the building permit.
Financial Incentives
Owners of properties with “E” and “K” ratings listed in the LB register became eligible to apply for a Mills Act Contract.
Procedures for the Alteration of LB Register Structures A structural and historical assessment would be required to determine if proposed alterations could be accomplished without removing the historic character-defining features. Submitted plans must clearly identify all the historic building elements of the structure to be obtained or removed.
A preconstruction meeting had to take place before the issuance of any building permit. The meeting was intended to ensure the protection of identified historic fabric that would be retained during construction d. The property owner, contractor, assigned inspector, city staff member and/or Heritage Committee member, and project architect were all required to attend the meeting.
Procedures for Demolition
This section was revised to include compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in addition to Title 14 of the City of Laguna Beach municipal code. These provisions apply to all historic structures listed in the LB Register as well as the structures in the historic Resources Inventory.
The language regarding the Illegal Demolition and Penalty for Violations was revised to state that the five-year stay in the issuance of a building permit for any new construction at the site previously occupied by the demolished historic structure would apply only to properties listed in the LB Register and would no longer be applicable to properties listed in the Historic Resources Inventory.
For the illegal demolition of properties listed in the Historic Resources Inventory, the stay of issuance of a building permit was reduced to two years. 24 25 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
12 ASM Affiliates
2020 Revised Historic Preservation Ordinance
On August 11, 2020, the City of Laguna Beach adopted Historic Preservation Ordinance 1650 which incorporated substantial changes from the previous ordinance. The provision for CEQA compliance was included in the ordinance in addition to explicit reference to building code exemptions and CEQA emergency exemptions. The new ordinance also included definitions related to historic preservation and clarified the differences between the LB Register and the Historic Resources Inventory. The most distinct difference between the previous ordinance and 1650 was the elimination of the 1981 Historic Resources Inventory, rendering the 1989 Ordinance 82.111 obsolete.
Succinct steps for applying to the LB Register were outlined and the Heritage Committee’s advisory role was strengthened in making those recommendations to the Planning Commission. The historic preservation incentives were streamlined and the requirements for receiving the incentives were made clearer. The requirement for a preconstruction meeting was eliminated; however, the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties was included as the authoritative guidelines to adhere to for all designated properties, which had not been directly stated in previous ordinances. The penalty fee for illegal demolition was consolidated to up to a $10,000 fine and included stronger deterrent language.
After receiving approval of the changes to the ordinance by the California Coastal Commission, an amended version of the Ordinance (1670) was adopted on April 26, 2022, and was inclusive of the requirements for Coastal Development Permits.
2.3 Mills Act Program
On September 20, 1993, the Laguna Beach City Council voted 4-0 to adopt the use of the Mills Act incentive program under Resolution No. 93.074 (City of Laguna Beach 1993a; 8). Resolution No. 93.074 stated that the incentive was only available to “E”-rated structures that were listed in the LB Register at that time or placed in the LB Register at a future date (City of Laguna Beach 1993b). Resolution No. 93.075 included the adoption of a $165 fee for processing Mills Act contracts and made effective on September 21, 1993 (City of Laguna Beach 1993c). According to the spreadsheet of all properties listed in the LB Register, provided to ASM by the City of Laguna Beach, the earliest recorded Mills Act Agreements were in 1995 (2), followed by just one a year in the late 1990s. Nine total Mills Act contracts were recorded from 2002 to 2007. The number of agreements began to increase in 2008 with seven recorded in just that year and nearly 80 more in the following decade through 2019. In 2020, the totals begin to drop, possibly due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The totals per year are as follows:
1995 (2), 1996 (1), 1997 (1), 1998 (1), 2002 (1), 2004 (1) 2005 (2), 2006 (2), 2007 (3), 2008 (7), 2009 (7), 2010 (6), 2011 (8), 2013 (1), 2014 (4), 2015 (5), 2016 (12), 2017 (10), 2018 (10), 2019 (15), 2020 (6), 2021 (4), 2022 (4), 2023 (3).
In 2008, the Heritage Committee began discussing revisions to the Mills Act program. When discussions began, “K”-rated properties identified in the Historic Resources Inventory could apply per the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance. However, when the committee agreed to proceed with amending the program requirements, it placed a 1- to 2-year moratorium on reviewing any “K”-rated properties and continued to review only “E”-rated properties going forward. At the end of 2010, the Heritage Committee recommended drafting the proposed changes to the program which took approximately a year to submit to the City Council for review.
25 26 of 165
2. Laguna Beach Historic Preservation
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 13 On April 17, 2012, the City Council approved the proposed Mills Act program changes (City of Laguna Beach 2012). The changes were as follows:
1. Applicants for “E”- and “K”-rated structures listed in the LB Register required to have a preliminary meeting with staff liaison.
2. Application fee of $225 and assessment of the property required by a Qualified Historic Consultant with a fee deposit of $2,000; any unused amount of the deposit would be refunded to the applicant.
3. Implementation of a deadline of April 30 to be considered for the following tax year.
4. A priority consideration list to qualify properties and Heritage Committee provides recommendation to City Council in ranking order for approval.
5. If a Mills Act application is not approved in any given year by the City Council, the applicant can revise the application and resubmit it in any subsequent year.
While the 2012 Mills Act Program changes did not eliminate “K”-rated structures from being eligible to apply, the changes did require more extensive research and scrutiny over which properties would be recommended for contracts to City Council. A review of archived meeting minutes of the Heritage Committee revealed that between 2013 and 2014, there was ongoing discussion regarding issues with the assessment reports being completed by the consulting firm. The Committee was not happy with the application format and began researching ways to improve it for ease of use by applicants, transparency, and thoroughness. In March 2014, staff distributed new forms for use by historic consultants for the Committee to review and provide comments. The revised Mills Act application was approved by the Heritage Committee and suggested to be made available online for the public to access (City of Laguna Beach 2014).
2.4 Preservation Agreements
Preservation Agreements are separate from Mills Act preservation agreement contracts which serve a different purpose as property tax incentives. The Preservation Agreements that became a requirement of local designation in 2006 are a binding contract between the City of Laguna Beach and the owner of the property listed in the LB Register. The property owner agrees that “the Subject Property shall not be altered or demolished without prior approval by the City of Laguna Beach.” The agreement is required to be “recited” in any Real Property Report required for the sale of the Subject Property in accordance with Chapter 14.76 of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The termination and/or amendment of the agreement is prohibited without the prior written approval of the City of Laguna Beach. A termination of the agreement must be requested by the property owner or the City of Laguna Beach before the termination can be recorded with the county. The agreement constitutes a “covenant running with and binding the land in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1468” and binds “all parties having any right, title or interest in the Subject Property or any part thereof,” including their heirs and successors.
The earliest recorded Historic Preservation Agreements were executed in 1992, as identified in the spreadsheet of properties provided to ASM by the City of Laguna Beach (City of Laguna Beach 2024).
These early agreements that pre-date their requirement as part of the designation process were strictly voluntary.
A graphic timeline including the legislative decisions and events related to historic preservation in the City of Laguna Beach as described in Section 2 above, is attached to this report as Appendix B. 26 27 of 165
27 28 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 15
3. SUBJECT PROPERTIES
In total, 54 properties (subject properties) designated in the City of Laguna Beach Historic Register and included on Table 1 below are lacking Preservation Agreements. The properties are located within both north and south Laguna Beach, and the years of construction range from 1897 to 1951. The properties are presented below in chronological order of their date of designation in the LB Register between 1989 (the year the LB Register was first established) and 2019. The table below also includes each property’s Historic Resource Inventory classification, architectural style, and year of construction.
Table 1. LB Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements Historic
Register
Number
Date
Approved by
Heritage
Committee
Street
Number Street Name
Current
Classification Architectural Style
Year
Constructed
1 09/19/89 505 Forest Avenue E Med Revival (City Hall) 1951 2 09/19/89 501 Forest Avenue E Med Revival (Fire Station) 1931 3 09/19/89 521 Forest Avenue K Med Revival (Sewer Plant) 1935 4 10/04/89 2688 Glenneyre Street E Cottage 1920-28
16 10/17/89 1245 Catalina Street C Bungalow 1935-36
18 10/17/89 487 Shadow Lane K Cottage 1922-35
47 10/17/89 31641 Third Ave C Tudor Revival 1935
29 10/18/89 680 Virginia Park Drive E Normandy Revival 1936 5 10/19/89 950 Glenneyre Street K Bungalow 1930
30 10/20/89 590
North Coast
Highway C Cottage 1938
40 10/27/89 494 Brooks Street C Bungalow Cottage 1930-40 41 10/27/89 2756 Solana Way C Shingled Cottage 1934
42 10/30/89 453 Palmer Place K Craftsman Cottage 1931
43 10/30/89 524 Park Avenue C Cottage 1907-28
50 11/06/89 1280 Brangwyn Way C Shingled Bungalow 1922
51 11/08/89 504 Park Avenue C Shingled Cottage 1912-33
55 11/14/89 429 Shadow Lane K Board & Batten 1935
57 11/17/89 412 Glenneyre Street E Settlement House 1897 59 11/17/89 2616 Queda Way E Med Villa 1940
89 11/17/89 2691 Victoria Drive C Board & Batten 1938
62 11/28/89 466 Aster Street K Craftsman 1923-27
63 12/05/89 170 Chiquita Street K Colonial Revival 1922 64 12/06/89 1140
North Coast
Highway C Med Revival 1935
65 12/13/89 455 El Bosque E Normandy Revival 1932
67 01/07/90 234 Forest Avenue E
Renaissance Bakery-Flat
Roof 1928
66 01/17/90 326 Forest Avenue K Remodel 1916
73 04/02/90 340 Diamond Street K Eclectic Shingled 1929-40 80 02/12/91 790
North Coast
Highway K Craftsman 1925
81 02/20/91 1574
North Coast
Highway C Mediterranean 1942
83 03/22/91 520 Alta Vista Way C Frame House 1930-34
87 05/24/91 1504 Carmelita Street K Board & Batten 1909 91 06/27/91 859 Cliff Drive E Provincial Revival 1930
92 07/08/91 415 Aster Street C Box Plan-Bungalow 1922-30 111 09/26/91 1990 Glenneyre Street C Craftsman 1924
72 03/15/92 860 Wendt Terrace K Eclectic Germanic 1927
28 29 of 165
3. Subject Properties
16 ASM Affiliates
Historic
Register
Number
Date
Approved by
Heritage
Committee
Street
Number Street Name
Current
Classification Architectural Style
Year
Constructed
109 05/04/92 387 Oak Street K Med Revival 1928
112 05/11/92 1 Rockledge Road E Italian Villa 1929
113 05/19/92 676
Bluebird Canyon
Dr C Shingled Cottage 1924-35
118 01/13/93 2699 Solana Way E Bungalow 1930
120 06/15/93 430 Park Avenue E Med Revival 1933
123 08/27/93 31672-4 Coast Highway K French Revival 1928 124 10/08/93 1195 Catalina Street K Cottage 1935
198 10/19/95 761 St Ann's Drive K Board & Batten 1927
88 08/18/97 2713 Victoria Drive C
Board & Batten
(demolished) 1929-40
182 06/08/99 362 Brooks Street K Beach Cottage 1935
242 04/25/01
1936 -
70 South Coast
Highway C 1936
21 06/12/01 31946 Virginia Way C Beach House 1937
236 11/20/06 31544 Eagle Rock C Board & Batten 1931
237 02/26/07 206-212
North Coast
Highway E See 273-275 Lower Cliff 1917
239 02/25/08 415 Forest Avenue E Church, bungalow 1927&1948 240 02/25/08 625 Seaview Street C Ann Hathaway style cottage 1931 291 3/16/2015
586 /
590 St Ann's Drive E Beach Cottage 1935
291 3/16/2015 761 Wilson Street E Beach Cottage 1933
305 6/20/2016 631 Virginia Park Drive E Eclectic Cotswold Cottage 1926 325 11/18/2019 1745 Catalina Street K
Spanish Mediterranean
Revival 1922
3.1 Assessment Methodology
Research
ASM began this project with a kick-off meeting to clarify project objectives, discuss past preservation efforts, and obtain all relevant documents. ASM met with members of the City’s Community Development department and established weekly meetings to maintain regular communication. The City provided a master list of all locally designated properties that detailed which properties have or are missing Preservation Agreements, which properties have Mills Act agreements, and each property’s Historic Resource Inventory categorization, architectural style, and other property-specific information. ASM was provided multiple city records to review, ranging from boxes of archival documents to online digitized records. Some documents were associated with the development of the City of Laguna Beach historic preservation program that primarily consisted of Heritage Commission meeting minutes, informational handouts, and legislative documents.
ASM conducted in depth research and analysis of the City’s legislative documents including Heritage Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council meeting minutes, city resolutions, the original City of Laguna Beach Historic Resources Element and all Historic Preservation Ordinances to gain an understanding of the changing requirements for designation in the LB Register over time. The earliest mention of a Preservation Agreement was at the June 9, 1993, Planning Commission meeting in which staff presented a report about the implementation of a Mills Act Program. An example of an actual Mills Act 29 30 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 17 contract from the City of La Verne, titled “Historic Property Preservation Agreement” was included in the report as “Exhibit C” (City of Laguna Beach 1993d).
After an extensive review of the City’s physical archives and online Arc GIS database, further research was conducted in-person and online at the Orange County Recorder’s Office, where Preservation Agreements are recorded by the City. Agreement documents cannot be searched by address but can be searched by the party that filed a document, so ASM began reviewing property agreements and deed restrictions filed by the City of Laguna Beach. ASM first conducted an online sample search of all the County agreement documents filed by the City in 1989 and 1990 but did not find any Preservation Agreements. ASM then expanded the timeframe of our search starting with 1992, the date of the oldest known Preservation Agreements, and ending with 2019 which is the year of the most recent designation date of the subject properties. The search generated hundreds of record numbers which were reviewed in person at the Orange County Recorder’s Office located in Laguna Hills.
Reconnaissance Survey
Concurrent with the archival research, ASM architectural historians Shannon Davis, Laura Taylor Kung, Jacqueline Padilla-Perez, and Madeline Gonzalez conducted an initial windshield survey of the subject properties to familiarize themselves with the variety of historical architectural styles in Laguna Beach and identify any that were not visible from the public right-of-way. After the City coordinated access to some of the properties, ASM architectural historians Jacqueline Padilla-Perez and Madeline Gonzalez conducted a second reconnaissance-level field survey of the subject properties on July 30, 2025, and August 1, 2025.
ASM conducted the surveys following the National Register of Historic Places Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning, which is the professionally accepted baseline for conducting historical resource surveys. The goals of the survey were to assess whether the criteria for which each property was previously designated are still applicable and whether any resource has experienced a loss of integrity since it was designated. ASM created a customized map based ARCGIS file to record survey data and photographs with hand-held tablets. ASM photographed the subject properties and recorded data that was observed on site.
Personal Interviews
As ASM conducted research and the survey work, several individuals with knowledge of the City’s administrative and historic preservation history were also contacted to more fully develop the history of the City’s Preservation Agreements:
Barbara Wiseman – Property owner residing at 170 Chiquita Street Ms. Wiseman was one of the first property owners to apply for the LB Register in the winter of 1989. The City’s Senior Planner, Tamara Campbell, asked if she would like to apply and Ms.
Wiseman stated that Ms. Campbell championed the historic preservation program when it was first introduced. When asked if she was asked to enter into a Preservation Agreement with the City, she recalled only that when she applied for building permit approximately 2–3 years after her property had been listed in the LB Register, she was told that she would have to sign a “deed restriction” in order to have the permit fees waved. She stated that she did not want to sign one and elected to pay the permit fees.
Tamara Campbell – Former Senior Planner for the City of Laguna Beach As a resident of Laguna Beach, Ms. Campbell served on the Heritage Committee from 2005-10.
Ms. Campbell confirmed that anyone with a property listed in the Historic Resources Inventory was eligible to apply for the LB Register and that she actively asking owners to apply. When asked if there was a requirement for properties listed in the register to have a Preservation Agreement, she stated that it was not a requirement prior to her departure in 1993. When asked if she could 30 31 of 165
3. Subject Properties
18 ASM Affiliates
recall if there was a requirement during her tenure as a member of the Heritage Committee, she said she could not.
Cathy Jurca – Local Historic Preservation Advocate and Heritage Committee Member Ms. Jurca stated that the policies regarding historic preservation in the city had changed and there had been multiple revisions to the preservation ordinance. She was familiar with the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance that required a Preservation Agreement but was not certain if the 1996 ordinance required it, believing that one to do more with the parking incentives.
Comparison of Properties With and Without Preservation Agreements After conducting research and interviews, ASM theorized that the missing agreements might be due to the lack of the requirement of a Preservation Agreement until 2006. However, there are extant agreements from as early as 1992. ASM further theorized that those early Preservation Agreements could be the result of prior Planning Staff’s proactive encouragement of property owners to enter into agreements with the waiving of permit fees, prior to their requirement.
To prove this theory, ASM selected eight of the subject properties listed in the LB Register between 1992, the earliest year that Preservation Agreements were recorded, and 2006, the year that Preservation Agreements became a requirement for inclusion in the LB Register (identified with an asterisk in Table 2).
ASM also included five properties with extant Preservation Agreements recorded prior to 2006 that are not one of the subject properties:
1. 2510 South Coast Highway
2. 489 Pearl Street
3. 410 St Ann’s Drive
4. 31382 Monterey Street
5. 40 N La Senda
The planning and building records available in the City online Arc GIS database were thoroughly examined for both the eight subject properties and the five test properties. The records reviewed included planning review applications, historic register applications, letters from staff to the property owners, letters from the property owners addressed to the City, property photos, Preservation Agreements and Mills Act contracts, meeting minutes, building permit records, and inspection cards, among others.
The comparison of the properties revealed a correlation between the recordation of a Preservation Agreement prior to 2006 and the submission of applications for planning review and building permits.
Preservation Agreements were recorded within one to eight months after an application was filed for major alterations to the primary building with the planning and building and safety departments. Properties without Preservation Agreements did not submit permit applications outside of minor building, plumbing, mechanical, and electrical permits or landscape projects prior to 2006.
Two example properties provide an illustration:
410 St. Ann’s Drive – Extant Preservation Agreement
• Approved for designation by the Heritage Committee on August 14, 2000 • Historic Preservation Agreement recorded on May 10, 2001 (Appendix C, pages 1-2) 31 32 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 19 • Building permit record for total roof replacement dated September 12, 2001 (Appendix C, page 3) • Inspection record card finalized on October 5, 2001 (Appendix C, page 4) 387 Oak Street – No Preservation Agreement
• Approved for designation by the Heritage Committee on May 4, 1992 • Building permit records for garden block wall dated October 30, 2001 (Appendix D, pages 1-5) • Building permit records for replacement roof tiles dated April 19, 1993 (Appendix D, pages 6-7) • Building permit records for replacement floor furnace dated December 11, 1992 (Appendix D, pages 8-9)
The informational interviews conducted with prior city employees and the permit record research clarified that staff ensured that a Preservation Agreement was recorded before the permits were issued without fees.
Prior to the 2006 revisions to the Preservation Ordinance, there was no requirement for properties listed in the LB Register to record a Preservation Agreement. Planning staff instead used Preservation Agreements as a tool and financial incentive to encourage property owners to apply for the LB Register or, if already listed, to formally agree to preserve it. Some property owners, like Barbara Wiseman, were invited to enter into a Preservation Agreement and/or apply for inclusion in the register with waived fees being offered as an incentive yet opted not to enter into an agreement or apply for the register, deciding instead to pay the permit fees.
3.2 Findings
After a thorough review and analysis of the archival materials described above in combination with observations during the field survey, ASM recommends that 33 of subject properties should remain designated in the City of Laguna Beach Historic Register, six should be removed from the LB Register, and the eligibility of 15 should be reconsidered due to a variety of factors as outlined in Table 2. Of the 33 that should remain designated, seven require a Preservation Agreement.
ASM has determined that the vast majority of properties missing Preservation Agreements were listed prior to that being a requirement for designation with the revised 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance. Of the 54 assigned properties within ASM’s scope of work, 46 (85 percent) were designated prior to 2006. The majority of those should remain designated and considered “grandfathered” in (highlighted in green in Table 2 below). However, there are four among those 46 that are recommended for removal from the LB Register due to loss of integrity since their date of designation. Finally, there are two properties that should be removed because research revealed that the property owner previously completed the process for removal from the LB Register and paid fees to do so, however those properties are still incorrectly included in the master list maintained by the city.
Eight properties (15 percent) were added to the LB Register after the adoption of the revised 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance. ASM was able to locate the Preservation Agreement for one of the eight properties (415 Forest Avenue/300 2nd Street). Therefore, seven properties out of the 54 are truly missing a Preservation Agreement that should have been recorded before they were included in the LB Register. The seven properties are noted with a “Y” under Missing PA column and highlighted in blue in Table 2 below. 32 33 of 165
3. Subject Properties
20 ASM Affiliates
Table 2 details the results of ASM’s analysis and provides “Recommendations” for next steps pertaining to whether a property should be removed, reconsidered, or remain on the LB Register. Each property has been assigned a number 1–10 which are defined as:
1. REMOVE, the property owner or the City requested to be removed from the LB Register, paid the fees, and the removal was officially recorded (Appendix I)
2. REMOVE, the property owner or the City requested termination of the Preservation Agreement, and the termination was recorded with the County.
3. REMOVE, the original property has been drastically altered or demolished and replaced with new construction.
4. RECONSIDER, property owner or City submitted the request for removal, but no other record of official removal exists.
5. RECONSIDER, the property is currently under construction, and its continued eligibility should be assessed after construction is complete.
6. RECONSIDER, evidence of a prior determination by the Heritage Committee and/or information in a historic assessment report indicates a change in classification may be appropriate.
7. RECONSIDER, observation of the property indicates sufficient loss of integrity that this property may warrant removal from the LB Register after discussion with the Heritage Committee
8. RECONSIDER, property is obscured and was not accessible during the survey, or the owner did not grant permission to enter and could not be viewed.
9. REMAIN, property was designated prior to 2006 and therefore a Preservation Agreement is not a requirement. The property retains integrity as classified.
10. REMAIN, property was designated in 2006 or later and therefore a Preservation Agreement will be required. The property retains integrity as classified. 33 34 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 21 Table 2. SUBJECT PROPERTY FINDINGS
Street No. Street Name Architectural Style Classification Finding Mills
Act
Missing
PA Notes
31641 3rd Avenue
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) C 9 N X
Appears to have been sold in 2014; Historic
Resources Report was made for this property
520 Alta Vista Way
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 9 N X
Last on the market in 2003; Known as the “Pink
House.” Displays high integrity.
415 Aster Street Box Plan – Bungalow C 6 Y X Upgraded to “K” in 2018 by Heritage Commission. 466 Aster Street Craftsman K 9 N X
*676
Bluebird Canyon
Drive
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 8 N X
Last sold in 2003; also sold in 1988. Investigate
viability, it seems that the shingles were of
“importance” of the property, and they have since
been removed. NO VISIBILITY OR ACCESS.
1280 Brangwyn Way Shingled Bungalow C 8 N X
Not very visible — can only see driveway and one
side from PROW
362 Brooks Street
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) K 2 N X
Recommended to be changed from “K” to “C” by
Heritage Comm. in 2003; Last sold in 2011.
AGREEMENT TERMINATED 10/14/05
494 Brooks Street
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) C 3 N X
Property changed hands multiple times since
1988; OCA Year Built is 1989; property appears
entirely of contemporary design, possibly NEW
CONST.
1504 Carmelita Street
Vernacular
[Agriculture] K 7,8 N X
Deed transfer from 1985 associated with APN; No
planning or building files available online.NO
ACCESS PER OWNER. NOT INTERESTED IN LISTING.
*1195 Catalina Street
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) K 9 N X
Changed hands multiple times since 1988. 1994
Orange County Historic Preservation home loan to
rehab and repair home. 1993 plans for bedroom
addition were withdrawn.
1245 Catalina Street
Bungalow
(Craftsman) C 9 N X Last sold in 1975; Deed transfer in 1983 1745 Catalina Street
Period Revival:
Mediterranean K 10 Y Y Sold multiple times since 2004;
170 Chiquita Street Colonial Revival K 9 N X
Granny Flat added in 1990 and approved by
Heritage Commission.
859 Cliff Drive Provincial E 9 N X
Addition approved in 1991. Variance approved in
1992.
34 35 of 165
3. Subject Properties
22 ASM Affiliates
Street No. Street Name Architectural Style Classification Finding Mills
Act
Missing
PA Notes
*31672-31674 Coast Highway
Period Revival:
French Chateau K 7 N X
Alteration to ground level windows, possibly were
originally storefront and are now smaller, operable
windows.
340 Diamond Street Cottage (Vernacular) K 9 N X Last sold 1989 31544 Eagle Rock Way
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 10 N Y Appears to have changed hands in 2014 455 El Bosque Normandy E 9 N X Application for historic register on file. 234 Forest Avenue Flat Roof E 3 N X
Originally Covern’s Bakery, first bakery in Laguna
Beach. In 2016 the building was assessed by two
historic consultants and determined to no longer
maintain historic integrity.
326 Forest Avenue K 9 N X
415/300
Forest Avenue/ 2nd
Street
Gothic “inspired”
Mediterranean
Revival E 9 N FOUND
The Preservation Agreement for this property was
found during research at the County Recorder's
Office.
501 Forest Avenue
Mediterranean
Revival E 9 N X
505 Forest Avenue
Mediterranean
Revival E 9 N X
521 Forest Avenue
Mediterranean
Revival K 9 N X
Zoning ordinance amendment 7/18/89 states that
all city buildings listed on the historic building
inventory will automatically be added to the
register.
412 Glenneyre Settlement House E 9 N X
950 Glenneyre
Bungalow
(Craftsman) K 9 N X Property changed hands in 1994;
1990 Glenneyre Craftsman C 9 N X
Application for 2nd story addition approved by
Heritage Comm. 2002
2688 Glenneyre Beach Cottage E 5 Y X
Sold in 2016 for the first time since 1978; Mills Act
Application and Historic Assessment Report.
CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
206-212 N. Coast Hwy E 10 N Y Listed in GIS as 212 S Coast Hwy. 590 N. Coast Hwy Cottage C 4 N X
Request to remove from Register 5/1/1992. Short
term rental 2018. WEST FACADE NOT VISIBLE
FROM PROW.
790 N. Coast Hwy Craftsman K 8 N X
PRIMARY FAÇADE NOT VISIBLE, all other facades
were fairly visible.
1140 N. Coast Hwy Mediterranean C 9 N X Single family to multi to commercial? 35 36 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 23 Street No. Street Name Architectural Style Classification Finding Mills
Act
Missing
PA Notes
1574 N. Coast Hwy Mediterranean C 5 N X
Owner requested removal from historic register in
1994 and 1996. NOT ENTIRELY VISIBLE FROM
PROW
*387 Oak Street
Period Revival:
Mediterranean K 9 N X
Property changed hands multiple times since
2008; PDF shows there was a request for a plaque
on the house. CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION
453 Palmer Place
Craftsman /
Storybook K 9 N X Changed hands multiple times since 1998 *430 Park Avenue
Mediterranean
Revival E 9 N X
Partially constructed of salvaged materials from
the 1939 Long Beach earthquake.
504 Park Avenue Shingled Cottage C 9 N X
524 Park Avenue Cottage C 9 N X
2616 Queda Way
Period Revival:
Mediterranean E 5 N X
Recently sold in 2024; was sold in 1988;
CURRENTLY UNDERGOING RENOVATIONS.
*1 Rockledge Road Italian Villa E 8 N X
Last sold 1989; multiple deed transfers since; no
photos available online. NO ACCESS PER OWNER.
625 Seaview Street
Ann Hathaway Style
Cottage C 10 N Y
Recommended for downgrade to a “C” category by
Heritage Commission in 2008 due to modifications.
NOT VISIBLE, CONTENTIOUS OWNER.
429 Shadow Lane
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) K 9 N X
Changed hands multiple times since 1990; House
constructed on an unusual angle
487 Shadow Lane
Beach Cottage
(Craftsman) K 9 N X Changed hands in 2000
2699 Solana Way Bungalow E 3 N X
ORIGINAL RESIDNECE DEMO'D. NEW
CONSTRUCTION OF ENTIRE HOUSE IN 2023.
2756 Solana Way
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 9 N X Last sold in 2003;
*1936-1970
(1956) S. Coast Hwy
Beach Cottage
(Tudor) C 7 N X
Modifications to exterior not favored by Heritage
Comm. as they did not keep historic character.
2004; Last sold in 2016
761 St. Ann’s Drive Board & Batten K 1,6 N X
Approved for removal from register in 2001.
Owners requested termination only one month
after they entered into the agreement because the
designation did not provide them with parking
benefits. REMOVED FROM REGISTER 8/31/01.
586-590/761
St. Ann’s Drive/
Wilson Street Beach Cottage E 10 Y Y
Unclear if 586 & 590 are separate residences —
lots of vegetation and hidden (only 590 is slightly
visible from corner). Recommended to be “C” by
36 37 of 165
3. Subject Properties
24 ASM Affiliates
Street No. Street Name Architectural Style Classification Finding Mills
Act
Missing
PA Notes
Heritage Commission 2003. Mills Act in 2015 with
upgrade to “E”. NOT VISIBLE / NO ACCESS.
2691 Victoria Drive
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 8 N X
Recently sold in 2019. Main dwelling no access and
not visible.
2713 Victoria Drive
Period Revival:
Mediterranean C 3 N X
Recommended to be removed from register in
2002; last sold in 2012; ORIGINAL RESIDENCE
DEMOLISHED
631 Virginia Park Drive
Eclectic Cotswold
Cottage E 10 N Y
680 Virginia Park Drive Normandy E 9 Y X
Only slightly obscured — on a hill, many features
are still visible
*31946 Virginia Way
Beach Cottage
(Vernacular) C 7 N X NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ONLINE
860 Wendt Terrace Eclectic Germanic K 1 N X
Recommended for removal from register in 2001.
Agreement terminated REMOVED FROM REGISTER
7/17/01.
COLOR LEGEND
REMAIN
RECONSIDER
REMOVE
REQUIRES PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
*One of the 8 properties researched thoroughly and compared to those with extant Preservation Agreements 37 38 of 165
3. Subject Properties
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 25 Figure 7. Recommendations for Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (North Map) 38 39 of 165
3. Subject Properties
26 ASM Affiliates
Figure 8. Recommendations for Laguna Beach Historic Register Properties Without Preservation Agreements (South Map) 39 40 of 165
4. Recommendations
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 27
4. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Properties Listed in the LB Register Prior to the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance (Category 9)
As Preservation Agreements became required for inclusion in the LB Register on January 10, 2006, ASM recommends that the properties listed in the register prior to that date remain designated and the property owner does not need to enter into an agreement. ASM will prepare a letter for the City to send to all of those property owners notifying them of their status and encouraging a Preservation Agreement by explaining the elimination of permit fees for those properties that have one. • Properties Listed in the LB Register After the 2006 Historic Preservation Ordinance (Category 10)
ASM will prepare a letter for the City to send owners of the seven properties (six owners) listed in the LB Register after January 10, 2006, to request a meeting to discuss recording a Preservation Agreement. The tone of the letter will be encouraging and educational. The letter will confirm for the owner that their home is currently listed in the LB Register but requires the Preservation Agreement to continue to be listed and will also enable them to take advantage of the incentives available to them.
1. 31544 Eagle Rock Way
2. 206-212 North Coast Highway
3. 625 Seaview Street
4. 586 & 590 St. Ann’s Drive*
5. 761 Wilson Street*
6. 631 Virginia Park Drive
7. 1745 Catalina Street
*Same owner
• Properties Listed in the LB Register and Officially Removed (Categories 1 and 2) 860 Wendt Terrace
On April 20, 2000, Jacob Padilla, owner of 860 Wendt Terrace, recorded a Preservation Agreement for the property in order to receive fee waivers for building permits. Mr. Padilla applied for a building permit to stucco the exterior of the building which was denied as it was not a permitted alteration to the historic structure and did not comply with the Preservation Agreement. Mr. Padilla proceeded to clad the building in stucco, which was not permitted, and was issued a stop work order.
The project was required to be reviewed by the Heritage Committee for the proposed alterations. On July 17, 2001, the Laguna Beach City Council, with recommendation by the Heritage Committee, determined that the property no longer qualified for listing in the LB Register due to multiple inappropriate alterations and authorized the termination of the Agreement (Appendix E: 1-5). ASM recommends that 860 Wendt Terrace be officially delisted from the LB Register. 40 41 of 165
4. Recommendations
28 ASM Affiliates
362 Brooks Street
On July 9, 1999, the owners of 362 Brooks Street, Leonard and Arlene Spielman, recorded a Preservation Agreement for their home. In 2005, the new owner, Mathieu Nuygen, applied for alterations to the home, which were denied as they were incompatible with the style of the building.
Mr. Nuygen then applied for a termination of the Agreement in order to be allowed to proceed with the alterations. On September 6, 2005, the Laguna Beach City Council, with recommendation by the Heritage Committee, approved the request for termination citing that the alterations would make the property ineligible for listing in the LB Register. The termination of the agreement was recorded on October 14, 2005 (Appendix E: 9-11). ASM recommends that 362 Brooks Street be officially delisted and removed from the LB Register.
• Properties Listed in the LB Register that have been Demolished and Replaced with New Construction (Category 3)
The following properties should be removed from the LB Register as they have been entirely demolished and replaced with new construction.
1. 494 Brooks Street was demolished and newly constructed in 1989.
2. 234 Forest Avenue was significantly altered sometime between 1989 and 2003 during tenant improvement projects.
3. 2699 Solana Way was demolished and newly constructed in 2023.
4. 2713 Victoria Drive was demolished and newly constructed in 2006. • Property With a Request for Removal But Still Listed (Category 4) Records indicate that the owner of 590 N. Coast Highway requested removal in 1992, but no additional action was taken. ASM recommends that the City contact the current owners to confirm the property is currently included in the LB Register and provide the same letter as the Category 9 properties.
• Properties Currently Under Construction (Category 5)
387 Oak Street
Property owners Georgia and Chien Sun, were issued a building permit on May 5, 2025, for the replacement of all the stucco, doors, and windows, which are required and stated to be “like for like.” During the field survey conducted on July 30, 2025, ASM architectural historians observed that construction is currently underway. ASM recommends that the City verify that replacements were done in kind at the completion of construction.
2616 Queda Way
During the field survey conducted on August 1, 2025, ASM architectural historians observed that painting of the exterior and a possible interior renovation was in progress. The decorative iron grills had been removed from the windows, possibly only for painting. Additionally, some of the original inlaid tile on the balcony was not visible, although it is possible it had been covered for protection during painting. A search in the City’s Arc GIS database did not produce a record of a permit issued for renovation or painting work. ASM recommends that the City verify that the exterior paint and 41 42 of 165
4. Recommendations
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 29 treatments have been completed in accordance with the requirements of the Historic Preservation Ordinance.
2688 Glenneyre Street
Owner Eugene Damiano was issued a building permit on June 11, 2024, for in-kind replacement of the exterior siding, half wall, handrail, deck, and roof, following the Mills Act Contract requirements. During the field survey conducted on August 1, 2025, ASM architectural historians noted what appeared to be a major front addition in progress. A search of the City’s Arc GIS database did not produce any results for approval by the Heritage Committee or a building permit issued for the construction of an addition or major work on an addition that had been previously approved. ASM recommends that the City confirm that the work in progress has been permitted and is in conformity with the Mills Act contract and LB Register requirements. • Properties Which Warrant Reconsideration (Categories 6-7) 761 St. Ann’s Drive
On June 15, 2001, a Preservation Agreement for 761 St. Ann’s Drive was recorded by property owner, Pearl Georgie Feist. Ms. Feist was motivated to enter into the agreement to receive the incentives afforded to properties listed in the LB Register. Ms. Feist desired to construct an addition to the property as well as receive parking variances but learned that she would not be able to receive the parking variances if she constructed the addition. Just one month after entering the Preservation Agreement, Ms. Feist applied for its termination. On July 17, 2001, the Laguna Beach City Council, with recommendation by the Heritage Committee approved the termination of the agreement citing that the proposed alterations would disqualify the building for listing in the LB Register. The termination of the agreement was recorded on August 21, 2001 (Appendix E: 6-8). During the field survey, ASM architectural historian, Jacqueline Padilla-Perez, held a brief conversation with the current homeowner who expressed that he was interested in once again having the property listed in the LB Register. He was aware that a previous Agreement was terminated. ASM recommends that the City reach out to the current homeowner to encourage him to reapply prior to correcting the status of the property on the master list.
415 Aster Street
On November 13, 2017, the owner of the property, Donna L. Snow, submitted a letter to the City requesting for the classification of her property to be upgraded for the purpose of being able to qualify for the Mills Act program. In 2018, an upgrade to a “K” rated structure was granted by decision of the Heritage Committee and a Mills Act Agreement was executed for 415 Aster Street on December 18, 2018. The property is still listed in the LB Register as a “C” rated structure and should be revised to show a “K” rating.
1504 Carmelita Street
The extant building that serves the property as a “garage” was noted to have the appearance of a barn during the field survey conducted on August 30, 2025. The garage is believed to be the structure on the property that was constructed in 1909. ASM staff did not have access to view the main dwelling as the property owner would not allow them to enter, and it was not visible from the public right-of-way. A visual inspection of the property would be required to determine if the main dwelling is also historic and whether it retains integrity.
42 43 of 165
4. Recommendations
30 ASM Affiliates
31672-31674 Coast Hwy
The property is a two-story commercial building constructed in a period revival, French Chateau style. While the second level retains much of its character defining features, the ground level windows, and cladding appear to have been altered. The current classification of the property is a “K” rated structure. ASM recommends the Heritage Committee reconsider the classification to determine if there have indeed been alterations, and if so, whether the building should retain its current classification.
1936-1970 (1956) S. Coast Hwy
The property consists of two one-story buildings. The address for the primary building is 1936 S.
Coast Hwy, with the secondary multi-suite building address as 1966-1970 S. Coast Hwy. The 1936 building retains most of its character defining features and therefore continues to display a high level of integrity. However, the 1966-1970 building has received storefront, window, and roof alterations that have led to a loss of integrity. ASM recommends the Heritage Committee reconsider the secondary building included in the LB Register and either remove it from the listing if it does not display sufficient integrity or adjust the classification. 31946 Virginia Way
The property consists of a two-story residence constructed in a vernacular beach cottage style. ASM observed that the building has had several alterations such as the replacement of the windows, doors, and roof cladding that do not appear to be in-kind or appropriate to the architectural style. ASM recommends that the Heritage Committee reconsider its inclusion in the LB Register after reviewing the alterations that have been completed.
• Properties Obscured from View (Category 8)
The following properties were not visible from the public right-of-way and their integrity could not be sufficiently assessed:
1. 676 Bluebird Canyon Drive
2. 1280 Brangwyn Way
3. 1504 Carmelita Street
4. 790 N. Coast Highway
5. 1 Rockledge Road
6. 2691 Victoria Drive
All of these properties were designated prior to 2006. ASM recommends that the City contact the current owners to inform them that their property is currently included in the LB Register (unless the property owner were to provide access and there was a sufficient loss of integrity) and provide the same letter as the Category 9 properties.
43 44 of 165
4. Recommendations
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 31 • Noteworthy Feedback from Property Owners
520 Alta Vista Way
Owner, Alan Panovich, called ASM on July 18, 2025, and spoke with Ms. Jacqueline Padilla-Perez regarding his property. He consented to having a photograph taken of his home and also expressed interest in elevating the categorization of his property from a “C” to a “K.” Mr. Panovich stated that there has been a lot of destruction of the historic homes in his neighborhood and he feels this makes his home a more valuable resource to the City. ASM recommends that the City contact Mr.
Panovich to encourage his stewardship of a historic resource. 590 N. Coast Hwy
Owner, Paulette Jenkins, called ASM on July 28, 2025, and spoke with Ms. Padilla-Perez. She stated that she respected the City’s efforts to preserve Laguna Beach’s architectural heritage but that she was not interested in having anything to do with the effort for her property. Additionally, she stated that she had already requested to be removed from the LB Register. Ms. Padilla-Perez informed her that her property was currently listed in the LB Register. Ms. Jenkins’s property does not require the recordation of a Preservation Agreement as it was designated prior to 2006. 1280 Brangwyn
On August 1, 2025, Ms. Padilla-Perez made a phone call to Mr. Charlie Birmingham upon his request to be called regarding questions he had about photographing his property. Ms. Padilla-Perez informed Mr. Birmingham that they were able to obtain the photo of his property without requiring additional access. Mr. Birmingham had no contention to the photo being taken but stated he was content with his status on the register and was not interested in pursuing anything further with the City’s efforts. Mr. Birmingham’s property does not require the recordation of a Preservation Agreement as it was designated prior to 2006.
625 Seaview Street
In July, owner Cameron Flanagan called ASM and spoke to Ms. Padilla-Perez about this project and the City’s interest in her home. Ms. Flanagan stated that she wanted to speak with someone at the City before allowing permission for her home to be photographed. Ms. Flanagan spoke to Samantha Beier on August 1, 2025, and approved access as long as she was present. ASM has not yet been able to coordinate a day and time to do so with Ms. Flanagan. 1 Rockledge Road
On July 31, 2025, Ms. Padilla-Perez received a text message from the property owner stating that they would not permit access to the property and that they are not interested in having their home in the LB Register. The property does not require the recordation of a Preservation Agreement as it was designated prior to 2006.
1504 Carmelita Street
During the field survey on July 30, 2015, ASM staff encountered the owner who would not permit access to his property for a photograph. He stated that he was not interested in having anything to do with the City’s efforts and that the letter he received was “bad news.” The property does not require the recordation of a Preservation Agreement as it was designated prior to 2006. 44 45 of 165
45 46 of 165
References
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California 33
REFERENCES
City of Laguna Beach. (1989, July 18). City of Laguna Beach Agenda Bill. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1989, July 18). Ordinance No. 1179. City of Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1990, August 20). Heritage Committee Minutes. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1990, February 20). Minutes Laguna Beach City Council. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1990, June 19). Minutes Laguna Beach City Council. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1990, February 6). Minutes Laguna Beach City Council . Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1993, June 21). Heritage Committee Minutes. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1993, September 20). Laguna Beach City Council. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1993, September 20). Resolution No. 93.074. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (1993, September 20). Resolution No. 93.075. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (2005). Updated Historic Resources Element. Laguna Beach: City of Laguna Beach.
City of Laguna Beach. (2012, April 17). Laguna Beach City Council Minutes. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (2014, March 17). Heritage Committee Minutes. City of Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
City of Laguna Beach. (2024, July 30). Agreement for Use of Structure for Historic Preservation. Laguna Beach, CA, Orange County.
Environmental Coalition of Orange County, Inc. (1981). Laguna Beach Historic Survey Final Report. Santa Ana: ECOC.
46 47 of 165
47 48 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDICES
48 49 of 165
49 50 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX A
1195 Catalina Street DPR Form
50 51 of 165
51 52 of 165
52 53 of 165
53 54 of 165
54 55 of 165
55 56 of 165
56 57 of 165
57 58 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX B
Timeline of History of Lagune Beach Preservation Efforts 58 59 of 165
59 60 of 165
Historic Resource
Survey Begins
Dec 21, 1982
Resolution 82.111
Adopted,
Recognizing
Historic Resource
List
Aug 15, 1989 First
Preservation
Ordinance
Adopted
Mar 20, 1990 City
Council Elects
Heritage
Committee
Members
May 22, 1992 First
Preservation
Agreement is
Recorded
Sep 20, 1993 City
Council Adopts
the Mills Act
Program
Oct 13, 1995 First
Mills Act
Agreement
Recorded
2005 Historic
Resource Element
Update
Jan 10, 2006
Preservation
Ordinance
Updated,
Requiring
Preservation
Agreement
April 17, 2012 City
Council Adopts
Revised Mills Act
Aug 11, 2020
Revised
Preservation
Ordinance
Nullifying
Resolution 82.111
Apr 26, 2022
Preservation
Ordinance 1670 is
Adopted
1980
1990
2000
2010
2020
History of Laguna Beach Preservation Efforts
60 61 of 165
61 62 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX C
410 St. Ann's Drive Property Records
62 63 of 165
63 64 of 165
64 65 of 165
65 66 of 165
66 67 of 165
67 68 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX D
387 Oak St. Property Records
68 69 of 165
69 70 of 165
70 71 of 165
71 72 of 165
72 73 of 165
73 74 of 165
74 75 of 165
75 76 of 165
76 77 of 165
77 78 of 165
78 79 of 165
79 80 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX E
Terminated Preservation Agreements
80 81 of 165
81 82 of 165
82 83 of 165
83 84 of 165
84 85 of 165
85 86 of 165
86 87 of 165
87 88 of 165
88 89 of 165
89 90 of 165
90 91 of 165
91 92 of 165
92 93 of 165
93 94 of 165
Appendices
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California
APPENDIX F
Subject Property Photos
94 95 of 165
95 96 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California Appendix H Subject Property Photos
SUBJECT PROPERTY PHOTO INDEX
ADDRESS PAGE
1574 Coast Highway……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 1 170 Chiquita Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 1 1140 N Coast Highway…………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 2 790 N Coast Highway…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 859 Cliff Drive………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 590 Coast Drive……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3 206-212 N Coast Highway…………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4 466 Aster Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 415 Aster Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 5 521 Forest Avenue (Sewer Treatment Plant)………………………………………………………………………… 6 505 Forest Avenue (City Hall)………………………………………………………………………………………………… 6 505 Forest Avenue (Police Station)………………………………………………………………………………………… 7 501 Forest Avenue (Fire Station)……………………………………………………………………………………………. 7 326 Forest Avenue (Ken’s Jewelry Store) ………………………………………………………………………………. 8 415 Forest Avenue (Laguna Beach Presbyterian Church)……………………………………………………….. 8 300 2nd Street (Presbyterian Church Bungalow)…………………………………………………………………… 9 234 Forest Avenue ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 9 412 Glenneyre Street (Settlement House)……………………………………………………………………………… 10 504 Park Avenue…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 10 524 Park Avenue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11 680 Virginia Park Drive………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 11 631 Virginia Park Drive………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 455 El Bosque……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 12 586 St. Ann’s Drive…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 761 St. Ann’s Drive…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 13 96 97 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California Appendix H Subject Property Photos
ADDRESS PAGE
860 Wendt Terrace………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 1280 Brangwyn……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 14 950 Glenneyre Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 387 Oak Street………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 362 Brooks Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 16 1195 Catalina Street………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 16 1245 Catalina Street………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 17 429 Shadow Lane…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 17 487 Shadow Lane……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 18 1504 Carmelita (Garage only)……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 18 453 Palmer Place……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 1745 Catalina Drive…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 19 1936-1979 S Coast Highway………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 20 1990 Glenneyre Street……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 20 340 Diamond Street…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 520 Alta Vista Way……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. 21 2616 Queda Way…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22 2688 Glenneyre Street…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 22 2756 Solana Way…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..22 2691 Victoria Drive………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..23 31544 Eagle Rock Way…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..24 31641 3rd Avenue………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….24 31672 Coast Highway……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..25 31946 Virginia Way…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………25 430 Park Avenue……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..26 97 98 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California Appendix H Subject Property Photos
The following properties were not accessible and were not able to be photographed:
*590 St. Ann’s Drive
*761 Wilson Street
**625 Seaview Street
**1504 Carmelita (Primary Dwelling)
676 Bluebird Canyon Drive
**1 Rockledge
*Same Owner
**Denied access by property owner
The following properties are new construction, not historic. They were not photographed because they are not eligible for the Historic Register and must be removed:
494 Brooks Street (1989)
2699 Solana Way (2023)
2713 Victoria Drive (2006)
98 99 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 1 1574 N COAST HIGHWAY
170 CHIQUITA STREET
99 100 of 165
2 ASM Affiliates
1140 N COAST HIGHWAY
790 N COAST HIGHWAY
100
101 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 3 859 CLIFF DRIVE
590 N COAST HIGHWAY
101
102 of 165
4 ASM Affiliates
206-212 N COAST HIGHWAY
102
103 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 5 466 ASTER STREET
415 ASTER STREET
103
104 of 165
6 ASM Affiliates
521 FOREST AVENUE, SEWER TREATMENT PLANT
505 FOREST AVENUE, CITY HALL
104
105 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 7 505 FOREST AVENUE, POLICE STATION
501 FOREST AVENUE, FIRE STATION
105
106 of 165
8 ASM Affiliates
326 FOREST AVENUE, KEN’S JEWELERY STORE
415 FOREST AVENUE, LAGUNA BEACH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH
106
107 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 9 300 2ND STREET, PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH BUNGALOW
234 FOREST AVENUE, ORIGINALLY COVERN’S BAKERY
107
108 of 165
10 ASM Affiliates
412 GLENNEYRE STREET, SETTLEMENT HOUSE
504 PARK AVENUE
108
109 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 11 524 PARK AVENUE
680 VIRGINIA PARK DRIVE
109
110 of 165
12 ASM Affiliates
631 VIRGINIA PARK DRIVE
455 EL BOSQUE
110
111 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 13 586 ST. ANN’S DRIVE (590 NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY) *NOTE: 761 WILSON STREET NOT VISIBLE FROM PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND NO ACCESS. 761 ST. ANN’S DRIVE
111
112 of 165
14 ASM Affiliates
860 WENDT TERRACE
*NOTE: 625 SEAVIEW STREET NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NO ACCESS WITHOUT OWNER PRESENT.
1280 BRANGWYN WAY
112
113 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 15 *NOTE: 494 BROOKS STREET: DATE OF CONSTRUCTION IS 1989, NOT ELIGIBLE 950 GLENNEYRE STREET
387 OAK STREET
113
114 of 165
16 ASM Affiliates
362 BROOKS STREET
1195 CATALINA STREET
114
115 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 17 1245 CATALINA STREET
429 SHADOW LANE
115
116 of 165
18 ASM Affiliates
487 SHADOW LANE
1504 CARMELITA (GARAGE) *NOTE: MAIN DWELLING IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY; OWNER WOULD NOT ALLOW ACCESS.
116
117 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 19 *NOTE: 676 BLUEBIRD CANYON DRIVE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, NO ACCESS.
453 PALMER PLACE
1745 CATALINA DRIVE
117
118 of 165
20 ASM Affiliates
1936-1979 S COAST HIGHWAY
1990 GLENNEYRE STREET
118
119 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 21 340 DIAMOND STREET
*NOTE: 1 ROCKLEDGE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND OWNER DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE THE PROPERTY PHOTOGRAPHED.
520 ALTA VISTA WAY
119
120 of 165
22 ASM Affiliates
2616 QUEDA WAY
2688 GLENNEYRE STREET
120
121 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 23 *NOTE: 2699 SOLANA WAY DATE OF CONSTRUCTION IS 2023, NOT ELIGIBLE. 2756 SOLANA WAY
2691 VICTORIA DRIVE
121
122 of 165
24 ASM Affiliates
NOTE: 2713 VICTORIA DRIVE, ORIGINAL BUILDING DEMOLISHED, NOT ELIGIBLE. 31544 EAGLE ROCK WAY
31641 3RD AVENUE
122
123 of 165
Phase I. Historical Analysis of Preservation Agreements in the City of Laguna Beach, California – Appendix I 25 31672 COAST HIGHWAY
31946 VIRGINIA WAY
123
124 of 165
26 ASM Affiliates
430 PARK AVENUE, ST. FRANCIS BY THE SEA CHURCH
124
125 of 165
125
126 of 165
Attachment 2
126
127 of 165
127
128 of 165
Prepared for:
City of Laguna Beach
Dept: Community Development
505 Forest A venue
Laguna Beach
Attn: David Contreras
949-497-0719 / [email protected]
Prepared by:
ASM Affiliates
20 North Raymond Avenue, Suite 220
Pasadena, California 91103
(626) 793-7395
December 13, 2024
Archaeology • Archileclural History• History• Ethnography· GJS Appendix A
"Scope of Services"
Attachment 3
128
129 of 165
Archaeology • HtSto,Y • ElhnOgraphy • Arctutecturat History December 13, 2024
City of Laguna Beach
Community Development Department
Attn: David Contreras, Project Manager/RFQ Administrator 505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. CD-24-1 for Historic Property Evaluations, City of Laguna Beach (City), Orange County, California
Mr. Contreras:
ASM Affiliates (ASM) is pleased to respond to RFQ No. CD-24-1 for Historic Property Evaluations for the City of Laguna Beach (City) to conduct a comprehensive review of properties listed on the City's Historic Register (Historic Register) and develop a system for evaluating permit applications.
ASM understands this project has two objects: the first involves assessing 54 properties listed in the Laguna Beach Historic Register (Historic Register) without preservation agreements using historical data and past documentation to evaluate their historic significance and condition and determine if a preservation agreement is needed. The second objective is assisting the City in developing a system to evaluate permit applications for properties not listed in the Historic Register to determine if properties qualify or need further evaluation under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In collaboration with City staff, ASM will work to streamline review processes, ensure compliance with CEQA, and set thresholds for additional studies, such as historical resources evaluation report during the environmental review process. ASM understands the City expects the project to be completed within six months of award of contract.
This cover letter includes a complete description of ASM' s qualifications, including a summary of our background and experience performing similar projects, proposed methodology, and a client interaction plan. The proposal that follows includes our team's composition, detailed project experience, our proposed cost for completing the project, our non-collusion declaration, and staff resumes.
A. STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
ASM is exceptionally qualified to meet the
needs of the City and conduct the requested
services to the highest standard, on schedule,
and within budget. With 45 years of
experience providing high-quality historical
and cultural resource services to local, state,
and federal agencies and private project
proponents throughout the West. We have
completed more than 6,000 studies related to
2034 Corte Del Noga!, Carlsbad, California 92011 • (760) 804-5757 • Fax: (760) 804-5755 20 N. Raymond Ave., Suite 220, Pasadena, California 91103 • (626) 793-7395 www.asrnafiiliaies.com
6 129
130 of 165
architectural history, history, archaeology, and other specialized services. These studies include reconnaissance- and intensive-level historic property surveys, inventories, and evaluations; local historic landmark/district identification and nomination; historic resources permit application and reviews including Mills Act; National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) nominations; Historic Preservation Plans (HPPs), Historic American Buildings Surveys (HABS), Historic American Engineering Records (HAER), and Historic American Landscape Surveys (HALS) documentation packages; historic preservation trainings; and public outreach and management planning documents such as Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMPs), HCS development, and Historic Building Maintenance Plans for buildings and structures throughout California. Our team has demonstrated experience in research methods, in knowledge of local architectural history, in the preparation of historic assessment/evaluation reports and historic property evaluations, and in the application of the SOI's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Treatment Standards). ASM has extensive experience conducting historical and cultural resource reports prepared for compliance with local ordinances, CEQA, NEPA, and NHP A.
Our team of Architectural Historians, Historians, and other Cultural Resource Specialists can provide considerable experience within the region, especially regarding the specific services required to successfully complete this project. By proposing a team of highly qualified individuals, we are ensuring the accuracy, timeliness, and quality of the delivered product, in accordance with the requirements of the proposed projects. All the proposed personnel meet or exceed the SOI' s Professional Qualifications Standards for their respective fields, including proposed PM, Ms. Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH, who exceeds the SOI's Professional Qualifications Standards as an Architectural Historian and Historian. All proposed individuals have been selected based upon their history of providing similar services to public sector organizations, their overall qualifications, and their ability to accomplish the assigned work on time and within budget.
ASM' s familiarity with the types of architecture that define Laguna Beach's built environment, our long history of providing similar services to a variety of municipalities, and our extensive experience conducting large-scale, citywide historic property surveys, developing HPPs, and performing historical resource permit application reviews including Mills Act, makes us uniquely qualified to meet the historic preservation needs of the City. As our past performance history has repeatedly demonstrated, our business plan, organizational structure, capabilities, experience, and project oversight allow us to provide services and products that invariably meet our clients' specifications and needs, resulting in client satisfaction, regardless of the workload or complexity of the required tasks.
B. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
ASM has completed the types of projects that will be
conducted for the City of Laguna Beach for other
municipalities throughout southern California including the cities of Los Angeles, Pasadena, Monrovia, Ontario, La
Canada Flintridge, Glendale, Santa Monica, Whittier,
Fullerton, Santa Ana, Orange, San Diego, Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Encinitas, Temecula, and Vista and the counties of Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and San Diego. As 7 130
131 of 165
a result, our staff has experience working with different municipal departments, city staff, and public commissions, as well as members of these communities through our public outreach efforts, project meetings, and keeping project proponents abreast of project status.
ASM has extensive experience with the property types and architectural styles present in Laguna Beach. We have conducted numerous historic resource assessments and surveys for residential properties (including single-family, multi-family, and entire neighborhoods), commercial, institutional, and educational buildings. We have surveyed and evaluated hundreds designed in the Craftsmen, American Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial revival, Minimal Traditional, Ranch, MidCentury Modern, and Post-Modern architectural styles.
Key personnel for the proposed project team have
completed two large-scale historic surveys for the
cities of Ontario and Monrovia that included
intensive-level surveys, the development of HCSs,
and public outreach efforts. The City of Monrovia
contracted with ASM to conduct a reconnaissancelevel survey for the City in order to identify historically significant themes unique to Monrovia
and prepare a HCS to provide a framework for
understanding and preserving the history of the
region, as well as codifying and streamlining the
identification of historic properties and establishing eligibility standards. Monrovia has a rich diversity of residential architecture such as Queen Anne, American Colonial Revival, Craftsman (pictured right), and Ranch. Many of Monrovia's civic buildings serve as excellent examples of the Mid-Century Modern style; these buildings reflect the changing cultural shift from traditional design to a more forward-looking American view that embraces technology and contemporary materials. The resulting HCS included an extensive list of property types, character-defining features, and registration requirements for both individually eligible properties and historic districts.
Additionally, multiple historic districts were recommended in the HCS, which was presented and accepted by the Monrovia City Council. ASM staff also conducted training sessions for City Planning staff and the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC).
As a result of an intensive-level survey of the Ontario International Airport on behalf of the City of Ontario, our staff identified numerous buildings and structures that were documented and evaluated using California DPR 523 forms in accordance with the California Office of Historic 8 Preservation (OHP). Many of the
buildings surveyed served as
outstanding examples of the MidCentury Modern architecture style that was widely used in aviationrelated facilities both in the United States and internationally. Further,
these buildings were constructed by
an Ontario-based architectural firm
that specialized in Mid-CenturyModern design and, in addition to 131
132 of 165
the airport, were responsible for several Modernist buildings throughout the City including Ontario High School and the Ontario City Library.
ASM has extensive experience working with cities to streamline the CEQA compliance and local permitting process. The impetus for the Monrovia project mentioned above was to establish a framework that would streamline CEQA reviews as part of the permitting process. The HCS ASM developed for the City was a significant step in that direction and ASM trained City staff and the HPC on how to determine when a historic resource evaluation report was needed, or when City staff could conduct a desktop review without the need for such a report. The HCS clarified which events, people, and themes in Monrovia are significant, which types of properties could be eligible associated with those themes. Furthermore, it established consistency among all evaluations conducted in the City, saved property owners time and money, and saved City planning staff's time in processing permit requests as well. ASM established a Checklist for Individual Building Assessment for City planners to review historical resource reports to ensure completeness.
ASM prepared a Cultural Resources Technical
Report (CRTR) for the new East Valley Specific
Plan (EVSP) for the City of Escondido in support
of rezoning for a 195-acre section for new
housing opportunities in the city. After
reviewing known historical resources and
preparing a historic overview and historic
context; ASM created a framework of potential
impacts to cultural resources with a list of
mitigation measures that could reduce potential
impacts to cultural resources to a less than
significant level in compliance with CEQA. We
created sensitivity maps that highlighted areas of
the City most likely to contain historic resources
and the requirements for historic resource
evaluations within the most sensitive areas were
more intensive than those areas with the least
likelihood for historical resources.
lefcie lil6
A.t!et 1¥16
NoO.uo
ASM also has relevant experience in fostering and guiding new preservation programs. ASM was the first historic preservation consultant for Los Angeles County, which enacted its first historic preservation ordinance in 2015. ASM assisted the County with more than 20 projects, including the designation of the County's first local landmark under
the new ordinance, its first Mills Act tax credit
applications, and cultural resources training for
Planning staff. Prior to that, ASM worked with the City of Henderson, Nevada, to conduct community
outreach and education to develop and codify the steps
needed to develop a Historic Preservation Plan for the
City. ASM provided education to City staff, public
officials, and members of the public pertaining to
historic preservation and the city's historic and cultural 9 132
133 of 165
resources, fostered community engagement and interest in the historic preservation process, and prioritized areas in the city for future intensive survey to identify historic resources. The resulting preservation plan established a vision statement for preserving Henderson's heritage; summarized past efforts at identification and preservation of historic resources; and established preservation goals, objectives, and tasks for the City.
ASM has conducted hundreds of projects that
involved extensive coordination with City
staff and were conducted in support of CEQA
compliance. ASM recently completed a
HRAR on behalf of the City of Carlsbad in
support of the 3 on Garfield Condominiums
Project. The architectural survey determined
that one building, the Victor Condo, is
eligible for the CRHR as a world-renown
example of Postmodernism. As part of the
Environmental Impact Report that was
prepared for the demolition of the property,
ASM recommended project alternatives such
as rehabilitation, project redesign, and several
mitigation measures to lessen the significant
impacts to the historical resource.
Other examples of similar large-scale surveys that ASM has conducted include a HCS for the City of Chula Vista, as well as a reconnaissance survey of more than 12,000 parcels, an intensive survey of more the 350 parcels, and presentation of the project in a series of public meetings including the HPC and City Council. ASM is currently completing a neighborhood survey of 483 parcels for the City of Glendale, to result in the designation of the early to mid-twentieth century Bellehurst residential historic district. In addition to the reconnaissance-level survey and preparation of a historic overview of the district, we developed a customized tablet-based survey form that enables efficient recording of building style, character-defining features, and aspects of integrity. Key personnel for the proposed project previously conducted a reconnaissance-survey and evaluation of the Altadena Highlands district in unincorporated Los Angeles County and a historic architectural context and historic resources survey of 36 properties associated with architect Loch Crane in the City of San Diego. Currently, we are finalizing a multi-year statewide NRHP evaluation project of more than 1,100 buildings at 250 locations for CAL FIRE and an updated HCS. Facilities included lookout towers, fire stations, conservation camps, air attack bases, and nurseries.
Other recent projects highlight ASM' s experience with smaller projects and complicated historic resource evaluations. In-depth research was conducted for a historic resource evaluation for a contributing resource in the City of Los Angeles's Windsor Park Historic Preservation Overlay Zone to confirm if the property had been moved to the parcel, and therefore should not be a contributing resource. ASM was able to confirm that the single-family residence had been relocated to the parcel, but in so doing discovered that it was an unknown work of master Modern architect Paul Revere Williams. The Prewar Modernist residence was part of the 1936 California House and Garden Exhibition, and a building that was believed by scholars to have been demolished. ASM is currently 133
134 of 165
working with the property owners to develop a renovation plan consistent with historic district design guidelines and the SOI' s Treatment Standards.
ASM' s familiarity with the types of architecture that define the City's built environment, our long history of providing similar services to a variety of municipalities, and our extensive experience conducting large-scale, citywide surveys, Historic Resources permit application reviews including Mills Act, and developing Historical Preservation Plans (HPPs) makes us uniquely qualified to meet the historic preservation needs of the City. As our past performance history has repeatedly demonstrated, our business plan, organizational structure, capabilities, experience, and project oversight allow us to provide services and products that invariably meet our clients' specifications and needs, resulting in client satisfaction, regardless of the workload or complexity of the required tasks.
C. PROPOSED METHODOLOGY
ASM understands that the City is seeking a
qualified consultant to conduct a comprehensive
review of properties on the City's Historic Register
and developing a system for evaluating permit
applications. ASM understands that this project
has two objects: the first involves the assessment
of 54 properties listed in the Historic Register
without preservation agreements and the review
of the properties using historical data and past
documentation to evaluate their eligibility. The
second goal is to assist the City in developing a
system to streamline evaluation of permit
applications not listed in the Historic Register while collaborating with City staff to ensure compliance with CEQA. We understand the City expects the project to be completed within six months of award of contract.
Project Approach
ASM will conduct the four tasks outlined by the City in the RFP: review of historic properties (Task 1), recommend a permit application system for evaluating potential historical resources (Task 2), property owner outreach (Task 3) and presentations (Task 4).
Task 1: Comprehensive Review of Historic Register Properties Deliverables:
• Kick-off Meeting Minutes
• Draft Assessment Report
11 134
135 of 165
ASM will begin the project with an in-person kick-off
meeting with City staff attended by our Project Manager (PM) and our team of architectural historians. This initial meeting will confirm project goals, objectives,
methodology, stakeholders, communication protocols,
and schedule. ASM will obtain all City records that the City only retains in hard copy; records that the City has electronically can be provided on a CD or sent to us
electronically. ASM will also request GIS shapefiles for the 54 parcels (or all parcels within the City if that is easier) that include the County Assessor's Year Built data. ASM will provide meeting minutes within oneweek of the kick-off meeting.
ASM will next conduct a desk-top review of all records the City is able to provide on the 54 properties that the City would like to have assessed. ASM assumes that all 54 properties were previously evaluated when they were designated and listed in the local Historic Register and, at this time, the City is looking to confirm that each property is still eligible for local designation, to codify the reasons why each property is considered historically significant, and to improve the City's documentation of each property's eligibility for the Historic Register. Within the discipline of historic preservation, the term evaluation has a specific meaning, that is to determine whether a property meets the criteria for eligibility for designation in a local, state or national register of historic places. Within this proposal, ASM adheres to that definition and uses the term assessment more broadly to include consideration of a variety of factors such as whether alterations to a property should affect its eligibility, and whether a property is a good candidate for a preservation agreement.
Once ASM has reviewed all City records, ASM's architectural historians will conduct a reconnaissance-level survey of the 54 properties. ASM will conduct the survey following NRHP Bulletin 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning, which is the professionally accepted baseline for conducting historical resource surveys. The goals of the survey will be to assess whether the criteria for which it was previously designed are still applicable and whether any resource has experienced a loss of integrity since it was locally designated. ASM will create a customized ARCGIS file to record survey data and photographs with hand-held tablets. By using this method/platform, our Architectural Historians can efficiently record architectural features, alterations, and the seven aspects of integrity- all from the public sidewalk. After completing the survey, ASM will decide which properties warrant additional site-specific archival research and full chains of title. For the purpose of appropriately costing this project and within the timeframe required, ASM assumes no more than 10 properties will require additional archival research beyond review of the City's records. Instead, we will conduct targeted parcel-specific research to confirm association with significant themes and/or individuals/groups as warranted. Building permits and/or Southwest Builder and Contractor will be utilized to confirm association with master architects and/or historically significant individuals, as well as document alterations that may affect the integrity of each resource.
12 135
136 of 165
Once ASM has completed our assessment of all 54 properties, we will prepare one comprehensive report that summarizes our findings. The report will delineate the City's historic preservation ordinance and designation criteria and provide an historical overview of Laguna Beach. Most importantly, the report will clarify the eligibility of each property, local criteria each property is eligible for, areas of significance (for example Spanish Colonial Architectural style), period of significance (for example, its date of construction), integrity, and applicable California Office of Historic Preservation Status Codes. Information will be provided in narrative text, tables, and maps based on GIS data that can be provided to the City to incorporate in their own GIS data. For all eligible properties, ASM will further assess and recommend those that the City should pursue the establishment of a preservation agreement with the current property owner. ASM will not prepare California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 series form for each property; should the City desire that form of documentation we can provide DPR forms under an augment for that additional scope of work.
Task 2: Develop Permit Application System for Evaluating Historical Resources Deliverables:
• Historical Resource Sensitivity Map
• Check List to Determine if HRER is Required
• HRER Guidelines
• Internal Check List for Completeness of HRER
ASM will collaborate with the City on
establishing and/or refining a system
for evaluating permit applications to
determine whether properties that are
not listed in the Historic Register
require further evaluation under
CEQA. ASM will review all of the
properties currently on the City's
Historic Register as well as historic
maps of the City's development ASM
will develop a built environment
historical resource sensitivity map that
will flag areas of the City where historic resources are most likely to exist. ASM will help create a list of permit applications that should be considered ministerial or discretionary under CEQA. For permits that are discretionary, ASM can collaborate with the City to develop a process by which City planners can determine which projects will not have the potential to adversely affect potential historical resources and therefore City staff can approve without further assessment, and which projects the City should require an HRER prior to permit approval. ASM can also prepare guidelines for the contents of an HRER and an internal checklist for City staff to ensure that the HRER contains all appropriate content and analysis to comply with CEQA. The completion of this task will streamline the City's review process and ensure compliance with CEQA guidelines for the identification and protection of historical resources.
13 136
137 of 165
Task 3: Property Owner Outreach
Deliverables:
• Letters to Property Owners
• Virtual Meetings with Property Owners
• Communication Tracker
• Meetings with Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition and Laguna Beach Historical Society
ASM understands that the City
would like the assistance of historic
preservation specialists in
communication and engagement
with property owners and
stakeholders. ASM will prepare a
series of letters for the City to mail
to the subject properties owners.
ASM recommends that an initial
scoping letter be sent at the
beginning of the project (Month
1)-notifying all property owners of the scope and intent of the project. The second mailing should be sent after the completion of the Draft Report and include information on how to access the report on the City's website and detailing the next steps the City would like to undertake with the owner.
Two versions of the second letter will be prepared, the first describing the de-designation process and the second confirming that their property will remain designated and that the City would like to discuss a preservation agreement and the benefits of doing so. ASM will be available to participate in virtual meetings with properties owners upon their request; for purposes of costing this proposal we assume not more than 20 such meetings not to exceed an hour in length. ASM will maintain a log in Excel of all communications with the property owners to be provided to the City at the completion of the project.
ASM also recommends engaging with the Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition and Laguna Beach Historical Society, as key stakeholders and interested parties for all historic preservation related issues in the City. ASM will contact them at the outset of the project to arrange either an inperson or virtual scoping meeting with them to get their specific input on the 54 subject properties, viability of preservation agreements with those owners, as well as their general input on permit process streamlining.
Task 4: Presentations
Deliverables:
• Presentation to Planning Commission
• Presentation to City Council
• Final Report
• Presentation to City staff
14 137
138 of 165
ASM will prepare a PowerPoint presentation to convey the project findings including:
l. List of properties that remain eligible for the Historic Register
2. List of properties ASM recommends be de-designated
3. List of properties ASM recommends the City undertake preservation agreements for
4. Historical Resource Sensitivity Map
5. HRER Guidelines
Individual property owners with
properties identified as eligible during
the survey should be invited to the
Planning Commission and City Council
meetings. Additionally, ASM
recommends the City publicize the new
processes and guidelines for historic
resource reviews community-wide.
ASM will consider input from the
Planning Commission and City Council,
and then finalize the report. ASM
recommends conducting the presentation
to City staff once the report is finalized.
ASM will provide guidance on how to apply the new system established under Task 2 by first referring to the sensitivity map, the list of discretionary permit applications that City staff can approve, and how to determine which projects will not have the potential to adversely affect potential historical resources. ASM will also review the guidelines for the contents of an HRER and an internal checklist for City staff to ensure that the HRER contains all appropriate content and analysis to comply with CEQA.
Ava i la bi lity /Ti meli ne
ASM is prepared to begin work shortly upon award of contract. With the aggressive six-month timeline for the project, ASM proposes to complete Task 1 quickly, within months 1-3; Task 2 in months 3-4; Task 3 in months 3-5, and Task 4 in month 5 and 6. Tasks 2 and 3 will overlap one another as we move forward with outreach prior to finalizing the new system.
Completing projects on schedule and within budget is critical to our client's satisfaction, and it is a central goal in ASM's business philosophy and management approach. Each assigned project staff member will have well-defined responsibilities directed toward achieving the project and contract goals. Bi-weekly internal project reviews help ensure that project tasks are completed on schedule and within budget.
Table 3 outlines ASM's estimated schedule to complete individual tasks for this project. The schedule below assumes the City will require two weeks for review of deliverables. ASM's PM, Ms.
Shannon Davis, will be responsible for managing the schedule and assuring schedule compliance.
Revisions to the schedule can be determined during the kick-off meeting. 15 138
139 of 165
Table 3. Schedule of Tasks and Deliverables
Task
1. Comprehensive
Review of Historic
Register Properties
2. Develop Permit
Application System
for Evaluating
Historical
Resources
3. Property Owner
Outreach
4. Presentations
111111
Month 1 Month3
Month3 Month4
Month3 Months
Months Month 6
Timeframe to
Complete
12 weeks
6 weeks
10 weeks
6 weeks
16 ' Deliverable I
• Kick-off Meeting Minutes
(Week 1-2)
• Draft Assessment Report
(Week 12)
• Sensitivity Map
• Check List to Determine if
HRER is Required
• HRER Guidelines
• Check List for Completeness of
HRER
• Letters to Property Owners
• Virtual Meetings with Property
Owners
• Communication Tracker
• Meetings with interested
parties
• Presentation to Planning
Commission
• Presentation to City Council
• Final Report
• Presentation to City staff
139
140 of 165
D. CLIENT INTERACTION METHODOLOGY
The key to success of most project is good
communication between all parties. With such an
aggressive timeframe for this project, ASM proposes
establishing bi-weekly project update conference calls
between ASM' s PM and the City's lead on the project.
In so doing, ASM can ensure that the City is kept up to date on the progress of the project and that all
information being provided to ASM from the City is
received in a timely manner.
As noted in Task 3 above, ASM will assist the City in communication and engagement with property owners and stakeholders. ASM will prepare letters for the City to mail to the subject properties owners. ASM will maintain a log in Excel of all communications with the property owners to be provided to the City at the completion of the project. ASM will be available to participate in virtual meetings with properties owners upon their request; for purposes of costing this proposal we assume not more than 20 such meetings not to exceed an hour in length. ASM will also contact and meet with two local organizations concerned with historic preservation: Laguna Beach Historic Preservation Coalition and Laguna Beach Historical Society.
The remainder of our qualifications are presented in the following proposal. We appreciate the opportunity to submit and look forward to discussing this project with you further. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at (760) 804-5757 or email me at [email protected]. This proposal shall remain valid for 90 days from today's date.
Respectfully,
Shannon
~~ Davis, M.A., RPH
Director, Architectural History Group
(760) 804-5757 / [email protected]
17 140
141 of 165
2. TEAM COMPOSITION
With a highly experienced staff of nearly 70 Architectural Historians, Historians, Archaeologists, Cultural Resource Specialists, and GIS and Graphics Specialists, ASM has the education, skills, and experience necessary to successfully complete the project. Our senior technical staff exceed the SOi's PQS for their respective fields; our proposed team for this project, based in our Pasadena office, has considerable experience completing large-scale historic surveys, preparing historic contexts, designing interpretive signage for historic properties, and conducting community outreach.
Proposed individuals have been selected based upon their history of providing similar services to public sector organizations and their overall qualifications and expertise. By proposing a team of highly qualified individuals, we are ensuring the accuracy, timeliness, and quality of the delivered product, in accordance with the requirements of the proposed project. All survey and evaluation work for this project will be conducted by our Architectural Historians who meet the SOi's PQS; additionally, one of our senior staff will participate in all aspects of survey work, ensuring the highest quality services and deliverables for our clients.
A. PROJECT TEAM
Shannon Davis, M.A., RPH
PM/Senior Architectural Historian
and Historian
Jaqueline Padilla-Perez, M.A.
Architectural Historian
18 Laura Taylor Kung, M.A.
Senior Architectural Historian
Madeline Gonzalez, M.A.
Architectural Historian
141
142 of 165
Our qualified team is led by Ms. Shannon Davis, who
brings more than 25 years of experience in the field of historic preservation and will serve as the PM for this project. She has an M.A. in Historic Preservation/
American Studies and a B.A. in American History and
exceeds the SOI's Professional Qualification Standards for Architectural Historian and Historian. As Director of
ASM's Architectural History department, Ms. Davis is
well-versed in all aspects of reconnaissance- and
intensive-level surveys, HCS development, evaluating
buildings and structures for listing in federal, state, and local registers, and in applying the aspects of integrity to a given property. Prior to ASM, Ms. Davis worked for eight years as an Historian at the NRHP (in Washington, DC), and for the National Trust for Historic Preservation as their west-coast representative for heritage tourism. She has conducted multiple historic surveys and prepared numerous historic contexts, including an HCS and citywide historic resources survey for the City of Monrovia, an HCS and intensive-level survey of numerous buildings and structures within the ONT for the City of Ontario, a reconnaissance-survey and evaluation of the Altadena Highlands district in unincorporated Los Angeles County, and an HCS and citywide historic survey for the City of Chula Vista. As PM under this contract, she will serve as the day-to-day contact person for the project and will be responsible for project oversight and quality control, as well as directing all aspects of the project including the desktop research, reconnaissance-level survey, provide peer review and guidance for the report; and attend the first Historic Landmarks Commission (HLC) meetings.
Ms. Davis will be assisted by Laura Taylor Kung, M.A.,
who will serve as Senior Architectural Historians under this contract. She has extensive experience in historic preservation and architectural history consultation,
including the develop of historic context to aid in the documentation and evaluation of historic properties
through large-scale surveys. With 15 years of historic
preservation experience, she exceeds the SOI' s PQS for Architectural History. Ms. Kung's expertise includes the documentation and evaluation of historic resources on
local, state, and federal levels. She has experience with HCSs for citywide resources surveys that included registration requirements on the local, state, and federal levels, and brings extensive experience in CEQA and Section 106 review; the preparation of NRHP nominations, Historical Resource Evaluation Reports (HRERs), HABS/HAER documentation, and technical reports in support of EAs and EIRs, municipal ordinances and amendments; and interpretation projects. Ms. Kung has participated in public outreach for larger citywide projects including public meetings for citywide surveys similar to that requested in the RFP.
Ms. Kung has been with ASM since 2017, specializes in residential and commercial twentiethcentury architecture, and recently prepared two local landmark nominations for I Magnin Department Store in Pasadena and Alpine Village in Los Angeles County. She conducted a reconnaissance survey and prepared a HCS for the City of Monrovia, as well as participating in 19 142
143 of 165
presentation of results of the project to the public. As Senior Architectural Historian on this project, Ms. Kung will participate in all phases of the project, conduct desktop research, reconnaissancesurvey, prepare a portion of the property reports, and attend HLC meetings.
Additionally, Madeline Gonzalez, M.A. and Jaqueline Padilla-Perez, M.A. will serve as Architectural Historians on this project. Ms. Gonzalez has a M.A. in Architectural History and a B.A. in Art History and is a Southern California native. A graduate of the University of Virginia's acclaimed historic preservation program, Ms. Gonzalez is a tremendous asset to our team. She specializes in historic residential neighborhoods and survey work, which she will be conducting for this project.
Ms. Padilla-Perez earned an M.A. in Historic Preservation and a B.A. in Interior Architecture. She has experience working with historic buildings, knowledge of historic building materials and architecture, has conducted existing conditions assessments for the restoration and repair of historic architecture, and prepared numerous architectural descriptions, evaluations, and contexts for historic properties. Together they will conduct desktop research, reconnaissance- survey, prepare a portion of the property reports, and attend the first HLC meetings.
Table 1 provides the names, disciplines, and proposed roles of all staff to be assigned to this project.
All proposed staff are committed for the length of the project; if key personnel become unavailable, we will notify the City immediately and resumes will be provided for substitute personnel who have substantially similar qualifications. Full resumes for key staff are provided in Appendix A.
Table 1. Staff Information
Name Project Role
Shannon Davis PM/Director, Architectural History
Laura Taylor Kung Senior Architectural Historian
Madeline Gonzalez Architectural Historian
Jaqueline Padilla-Perez Architectural Historian
Alondra Garcia GIS Specialist
Sherri Andrews Quality Assurance
3. PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Education
M.A./Historic Preservation
B.A./American History
M.A./Historic Preservation Planning
B.A./Art History
M.A./ Architectural History
B.A./Art History
M.A./Historic Preservation
B.A./Interior Architecture
M.S./GIS
B .A.I Anthropology
J.D./Law
M.A./ Archaeology
B.A./ Anthropology
With our depth of experience, ASM brings the necessary expertise as well as technical and professional skills to successfully complete this project. All team members meet the SOi's PQS for Architectural Historian and/or Historian; all have master's degrees in architectural history or historic preservation, some are dual qualified with degrees in history as well. Additionally, they all have extensive experience in conducting historical resource evaluations and assessments reports, large-scale historic property surveys, preparing HCSs, knowledge of local architectural history, and the use of the SOi's Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties. Table 2 includes reference information for clients we have worked with who can attest to the quality of work ASM provides.
Short summaries of these relevant projects are provided below. 20 143
144 of 165
TABLE 2. Client Reference Information
Project Name Date and Location
City of Monrovia HCS,
Intensive Level Survey, and
Identification of Potential
Historic Districts
City of Escondido Cultural
Resources Survey for the East
Valley Specific Plan
Los Angeles County Historic
Preservation and Mills Act
On-Call
City of Carlsbad 3 on Garfield
Historical Resource
Assessment
Citywide Historic Resources
Survey for the City of Chula
Vista
2017 - 2017;
Los Angeles
County, California
2020 - 2021;
San Diego County,
California
2015 - 2017;
Los Angeles
County, California
2023 - 2024;
San Diego County,
California
2012-2013;
San Diego County,
California
21 Client Reference
City of Monrovia
Sheri Bermejo, Planning Division Manager
(626) 932-5539/[email protected]
Harris & Associates
Ryan Binns, Environmental Planning Director
(619) 236-1778 / [email protected]
City of Escondido
Mike Strong, Director of Community Development
(760) 839-4556 / [email protected]
Los Angeles County
Dean Edwards Senior Planner
(213) 974-6425 / [email protected]
Baranek Consulting Group
Kim Baranek, Principal/Senior Project Manager
(858) 922-8604 / [email protected]
City of Carlsbad
Eric Lardy, AICP City Planner
( 442) 339-2600 / [email protected]
City of Chula Vista
Harold Phelps, Staff Liaison
(619) 409-5872 / [email protected]
144
145 of 165
City of Monrovia Historic Context Statement, Intensive Level Survey, and Identification of Potential Historic Districts
Los Angeles County, California
ASM prepared an HCS and reconnaissancelevel comprehensive survey for the City of Monrovia, the fourth oldest city in Los Angeles
County, in order to identify historically
significant themes unique to Monrovia, as well
as themes in the wider geographic area that
might be exemplified by the City's extant built
environment. The HCS is now used to provide a
historical background for properties located
within the City, as a framework for
understanding and preserving the history of the
region, for identifying associated property
types, and for establishing eligibility standards. ASM Architectural Historians and Historians conducted archival research, provided public outreach opportunities for the City and the local Monrovia Historic Preservation Group, completed a reconnaissance-level survey of the entire City and prepared and synthesized all findings in compliance with guidance from the NRHP and the California OHP for the final HCS. ASM also conducted public scoping meetings, met with local interested parties, and concluded the project with trainings for City staff and the HPC on how to utilize the HCS. The Final HCS was presented and accepted by the City Council. The HCS has codified and streamlined the identification of historic properties, by listing property types, character-defining features, and registration requirements for both individually eligible properties and historic districts. ASM also recommended multiple eligible historic districts, provided as a separate document for internal City use.
Client Information
Team Members
Value of Contract
City of Los Angeles
Sheri Bermejo, Planning Division Manager
415 South Ivy Avenue,
Monrovia, CA 91016
(626) 932-5539 / [email protected]
Shannon Davis, PM/Senior Architectural Historian
Laura Kung, Senior Architectural Historian
Sherri Andrews, Quality Control/Assurance
$64,100.60
22 145
146 of 165
City of Escondido Cultural Resources Survey for the East Valley Specific Plan {EVSP) San Diego County, California
ASM conducted a cultural resources study in
support of the City of Escondido's EVSP that
would focus growth and increase density in
the new EVSP area, with a goal to encourage
new housing opportunities, improve economic
vibrancy, and allow for flexibility in use and
implementation as the EVSP area changes over
time. ASM prepared a report that identified the
City's historical resources and guidelines for
the City's treatment and protection of those
resources. ASM prepared a background
records search and literature review;
prehistoric and historic overview; historic
context; and create a framework of potential impacts to cultural resources with a list of mitigation measures that could reduce potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level in compliance with CEQA.
Client Information
Team Members
Value of Contract
Harris & Associates
Ryan Binns, Environmental Planning Director
2375 Northside Drive, Suite 125
San Diego, CA 92108
(619) 236-1778 / [email protected]
City of Escondido
Mike Strong, Director of Community Development
201 North Broadway
Escondido, CA 92025
(760) 839-4556 I [email protected]
Shannon Davis, Senior Architectural Historian
Laura Taylor Kung, Senior Architectural Historian
$22,253.50
23 146
147 of 165
Los Angeles County Historic Preservation and Mills Act On-Call Los Angeles County, Calfironia
ASM served as the historic preservation
consultant for the County through a multi-year
on-call contract; ASM conducted 15 task orders
under this contract. Under this contract, we
conducted numerous Mills Act inspections and
provided review and feedback on proposed work
programs, assessing each work program for
adherence with the SOI' s Standards. ASM also
reviewed and assisted with local landmark
nominations for the County; the first of these was
the Doumakes House in View Park for which
ASM determined that the property satisfied two
criteria for landmark status as set forth in the County of Los Angeles Historic Preservation Ordinance Criteria for Designation of Landmarks and Historic Districts (County Register) for its association with the Doumakes family, as well as representing an architectural style as a good example of a typical Spanish Colonial Revival residence. ASM supported the County in the development of a landmark nomination for the Alta Dean Highlands historic district on the border of Pasadena, including attending a public meeting to gauge support for the nomination and address concerns and questions of the residents. Most recently, ASM completed the County Register landmark evaluation for Alpine Village, a themed shopping court in Torrance, California. ASM recommended the property eligible for its association with Commercial Development and the Automobile, as a center of European American social and cultural activity, and as a rare example of a Bavarian-themed shopping court in Los Angeles County. ASM attended public hearings to support the recommendations, and the property was designated in 2019.
Client Information
Team Members
Value of Contract
Los Angeles County
Dean Edwards, Department of Regional Planning
320 West Temple Street, Room 1001
Los Angeles, CA 90012
213) 974-6425 / [email protected]
Shannon Davis, PM/Senior Architectural Historian
Laura Kung, Senior Architectural Historian
Sherri Andrews, Quality Control/ Assurance
$53,204.00
24 147
148 of 165
City of Carlsbad 3 on Garfield Condominiums Historical Resource Assessment San Diego County, California
ASM prepared a Historic Resources Assessment
Report (HRAR) to identify historical resources
and assess potential impacts from the 3 on
Garfield Condominiums Project in Carlsbad,
California. ASM conducted an architectural
history survey which resulted in the
identification of a historical resource within the
APE. The building at 2685-2689 Garfield Street,
also known as Victor Condo, was determined
eligible for the CRHR as an excellent example of
Postmodernism in San Diego County and
would be eligible as a Carlsbad Historic
Resource provided there was owner consent.
The Project proposes demolition of the building which will result in a substantial adverse impact to a historical resource. As such, ASM recommends alternatives such as rehabilitation, project redesign, and documentation to mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed project.
Client Information
Team Members
Value of Contract
Baranek Consulting Group
Kim Baranek, Principal/Senior Project Manager
9984 Scripps Ranch Boulevard, #138
San Diego, CA 92131
(858) 922-8604 / [email protected]
City of Carlsbad
Eric Lardy, AICP City Planner
Community Development Department
1635 Faraday Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
(442) 339-2600 / [email protected]
Shannon Davis, PM/Senior Architectural Historian
Laura Kung, Senior Architectural Historian
$32,623.89
25 148
149 of 165
Citywide Historic Resources Survey for the City of Chula Vista San Diego County, California
ASM conducted a multi-phase city-wide historic
resources survey for the City of Chula Vista in
support of their recently adopted HPP. More than
12,000 parcels were identified during the Phase
One reconnaissance survey that contained
buildings more than 45 years old. Phase One
included the development of a historic context
that outlined Chula Vista's relevant themes, time
periods, events, people, and architectural styles,
within which the individual resources were
evaluated. During Phase Two, intensive
evaluations were conducted for nearly 400
potential historic resources through intensive field
survey, additional research, and comparison with similar properties. An integral part of the process was a series of public meetings where input from the community was sought, and the findings of the two phases of the survey were presented to the public and Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). This project was completed within schedule and budget.
Client Information
Team Members
Value of Contract
City of Chula Vista
Harold Phelps, Staff Liaison
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 91910
(619) 409-5872 / [email protected]
Shannon Davis, PM/Senior Architectural Historian
Sherri Andrews, Quality Control/ Assurance
$73,000.00
26 149
150 of 165
4. PROJECT BUDGET ESTIMATE
ASM is prepared to provide the tasks outlined in the Scope of Required Services for a maximum cost of $106,991.20. A detailed breakdown, itemized per task, is provided below as Table 3.
Table 3. Budget Breakdown
~ - -"~ -.. Hlm<y•HiAlr'f•Onor;rar,• 05
LABOR Sta Hourly
CATEGORY ff Rate
Project Manager/
Sr. Architectural SD $ 200.00 Historian/
Historian
Senior
Architectural LK $ 155.00
Historian
Architectural MG $ 125.00 Historian
Architectural
JPP $ 125.00 Historian
GIS Manager AG $ 100.00
Quality SA $ 150.00 Assurance
Mileage - $ 0.67
Title Search $500.00
TOTAL BY
TASK
Task 1:
Comprehensive
Review of
Historic Register
Properties
16 100
100
100
8 8
660
10 $51,138.90
Task 2: Develop
Permit Application
System for
Evaluating
Historical
Resources
24 24
40 40
-
-
270
-
$18,699.55
27 Task 3: Property
Owner Outreach
Numbl'r of Hours
38 25
25 25
-
-
540
-
$18.084.10
Task 4:
Pre sen ta tions
10 26
26 10
8 6
810
$19,068.65
Total
Hours
by
Task
88 175
191
175
16 14
2,280
10 -
Total Cost
By Task
$17,600.00
$27,125.00
$23,875.00
$21,875.00
$1,600.00
$2,100.00
$1,527.60
$5,000.00
$106,991.20
150
151 of 165
E. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
ASM has no potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ASM does not currently, nor has it previously held any contracts with the City of Laguna Beach. ASM is not aware of any current or retired City official or employee, or City official's or employee's immediate family member(s) that has/have ownership interest in ASM or is deriving personal financial gain from this contract, nor are we aware of any City official or employee that is contemporaneously employed or prospectively will be employed by ASM at any time during the Project period known at the time this Statement of Qualifications is being submitted .
28 151
152 of 165
STAFF RESUMES
29 152
153 of 165
ASM
Archaeology • Architectural History • History • Ethnography • GIS
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
25 EDUCATION
M .A ./Historic Preservation
B.A./ American History
REGISTRATIONS
• National / 2011 / Register of
Professional Historians
• California Historical Resources
Information System - Architectural
History, History, Archaeology
PROFILE
Ms. Davis has 25 years of experience in the
field of historic preservation and exceeds
the SO/ 's Professional Qualification
Standards for Architectural History and
History. As an Architectural Historian and
Director of Architectural History at ASM,
Ms. Davis has documented and evaluated
numerous historical resources throughout
California and the west in compliance with
federal, state, and local criteria, including
NRHP, Section 106 of the NHPA, CRHR,
and CEQA. Her experience includes local,
state evaluations and nominations; HABS,
HAER, and HALS submissions; preparation
ofHSRs, HRARs, large- and small-scale
HCSs, ICRMPs, and treatment,
maintenance, and interpretation plans; and
conducting public outreach and
interpretation including public forums,
signage, brochures, and interpretation plans.
Ms. Davis earned has an M.A. in Historic
Preservation/ American Studies from
George Washington University, where she
wrote her master's thesis on the
architectural history of drive-in theaters,
and a B.A. in American History from the
SHANNON DA VIS, M.A., RPH
PM/ Architectural Historian/Historian
HIGHLIGHTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Monrovia HCS and Identification of
Potential Historic Districts, Los Angeles County,
CA - PM/Senior Architectural Historian - City of
Monrovia
Prepared a citywide HCS for Monrovia, based on
reconnaissance-level surveys of the city to identify and define potential historic districts within the City. Work included development of themes and identification of
associated property types, character-defining features, and registration requirements for historic districts
comprising late I 9th-century to early 20th-century
residential properties, commercial districts, ethnic
enclaves, and institutional properties. Organized public outreach and meetings with City personnel.
City of Escondido Cultural Resources Survey for
the EVSP, San Diego County, CA - PM/Senior
Architectural Historian - Harris & Associates on
behalf of the City of Escondido
Oversaw a CRS for the EVSP area in Escondido
including literature review; prehistoric and historic
overview; historic context; and creation of a
framework of potential impacts to cultural resources
with a list of mitigation measures that could reduce
potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than
significant level in compliance with CEQA.
City of Los Angeles On-Call Section 106 Historic
Preservation Services Contract, Los Angeles
County, CA - Project Manager and Senior
Architectural Historian - Los Angeles Housing and
Community Investment Department (HCIDLA)
Under an on-call contract with the HCIDLA, provided
Section 106 services to assist in conducting research,
preparing all federal and state required documentation
of potential historically-significant properties, and
coordinate with the SHPO, the U.S. HUD and the
Advisory Council, and prepare a work plan and a PA to
fulfill the purposes of the NHPA. Created a database
to manage the work, track the status and findings of
each project, and assist with the bi-annual reporting
required under the PA. Completed Section 106 review
for several properties throughout Los Angeles
including an apartment complex set for demolition, the
Old Junipero Serra Library, and the Algin Sutton Pool.
30 153
154 of 165
University of Southern California. Before
joining ASM, Ms. Davis worked for the
National Trust for Historic Preservation as
their west-coast representative for heritage
tourism. Much of Ms. Davis's professional
experience is with the cultural resources
programs of the National Park Service
(NPS). For eight years she worked for the
NRHP as an Historian. She also worked as
a Historic Preservation Specialist and
Project Manager for three other NPS
programs: the American Battlefield
Protection Program, NPS History Program,
and HABS/HAER/HALS/CRGIS. Ms.
Davis has experience with the operational
requirements of a historic site through her
position as Assistant Site Manager of the
1812 Federal home of Supreme Court
Justice Gabriel Duvall. Additionally, Ms.
Davis served for several years as Chair of a
local preservation advocacy group, the
Arlington Heritage Alliance, and was one of
the founders of the national non-profit
Recent Past Preservation Network.
City of Carlsbad 3 on Garfield Condominiums
Historical Resource Assessment, San Diego County,
CA - Project Manager and Senior Architectural
Historian - Baranek Consulting Group on behalf of the
City of Carlsbad
Oversaw the preparation ofan HRAR in support of the
3 on Garfield Condominiums Project. Resulted in
identification of a historical resource, the Victor
Condo, which was determined to be eligible for the
CRHR as an excellent example of Postmodemism in
San Diego County and would be eligible as a Carlsbad
Historic Resource provided there was owner consent.
City of Chula Vista Historic Resources Survey, City
of Chula Vista, CA - Senior Architectural Historian -
City of Chula Vista
Conducted a reconnaissance survey of more than
12,000 parcels and intensive survey of more the 350
parcels, based on a historic context developed as part
of the project for the City of Chula Vista. Solicited
public input on and presented findings of the survey in a series of public meetings. Made recommendations of
local, state, and national eligibility. In addition to a final survey report, prepared a comprehensive survey
database as well as web-based interactive photograph
and maps.
Ontario International Airport (ONT) HCS,
Intensive Survey and Video Documentary, San
Bernardino County, CA - PM/Senior Architectural
Historian - City of Ontario
Conducted intensive-level survey and HCS for
numerous buildings and structures within the ONT.
Developed themes, contexts, registration requirements,
and character-defining features for identification of a range of property types, from World War II aircraft
hangars to Cold War-era administration buildings.
Conducted oral interviews and directed production of a
10-minute video documentary.
Bellehurst Historic District Survey, Los Angeles
County, CA - Project Manager/ Architectural
Historian - City of Glendale
Managed survey and documentation of individual
resources in potential historic district. Identified
potential contributors, and prepared evaluations for
potential historic resources. Oversaw the development
of the written repo1t.
31 154
155 of 165
ASM
Archaeology • Architectural History • History • Ethnography • GIS
TOTAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
14 EDUCATION
M.A./Historic Preservation
M.F.A./Fiction and Literature
B.A./Art History
PROFILE
Ms. Kung has 14 years of experience in
historic preservation and planning and
meets the SOI 's Professional Qualification
Standards for Architectural History. Ms.
Kung has experience in developing
historical and cultural resources reports and
in evaluating properties under federal, state,
and local criteria, including NRHP, Section
I 06, CRHR, and CEQA compliance. Ms.
Kung's professional background includes
management and contributions to projects
concentrating on the evaluation of historic
properties and districts. Her responsibilities
included conducting background research,
writing architectural descriptions, and
compiling evaluations and significance
statements for California DPR historic
resources forms.
LAURA KUNG, M.A.
Senior Architectural Historian
HIGHLIGHTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
City of Monrovia HCS and Identification of
Potential Historic Districts, Los Angeles County,
CA - Architectural Historian - City of Monrovia
Assisted in the development of a citywide HCS for
Monrovia, including recommendations for historic
districts. Contexts and themes were identified and
defined based on a windshield survey of the city,
archival research using primary and secondary
resources, and review of previous evaluations.
City of Escondido Cultural Resources Survey for
the EVSP, San Diego County, CA - Senior
Architectural Historian - Harris & Associates on
behalf of the City of Escondido
Conducted a survey for the EVSP area in Escondido
including literature review; prehistoric and historic
overview; historic context; and creation of a
framework of potential impacts to cultural resources
with a list of mitigation measures that could reduce
potential impacts to cultural resources to a less than
significant level in compliance with CEQA.
Los Angeles County Historic Preservation and Mills
Act On-Call, Los Angeles County, CA.-
Architectural Historian - County of Los Angeles
Conducted survey and evaluation of the Altadena
Highlands district in unincorporated Los Angeles
County adjacent to the City of Pasadena. Also prepared
historic evaluation reports for reconnaissance of a
Bavarian-themed shopping complex for submission to
the County of Los Angeles as part of an application for landmark status. Conducted site visit, background
research, and prepared the evaluation reports.
City of Carlsbad 3 on Garfield Condominiums
Historical Resource Assessment, San Diego County,
CA - Senior Architectural Historian - Baranek
Consulting Group on behalf of the City of Carlsbad
Oversaw the preparation of an HRAR in support of the
3 on Garfield Condominiums Project. Resulted in
identification of a historical resource, the Victor
Condo, which was determined to be eligible for the
CRHR as an excellent example of Postmodernism in
San Diego County and would be eligible as a Carlsbad
Historic Resource provided there was owner consent.
32 155
156 of 165
Historic Highlands Historic District Standards and
Guidelines, Los Angeles County, CA-Architectural
Historian - Los Angeles County
Conducted two phases included a reconnaissance
survey and application review of the proposed
Altadena Historic Highlands historic district in
unincorporated Los Angeles County adjacent to the
City of Pasadena. This included recommendations for
district boundaries and preliminary estimates of
contributing properties. Second phase was an intensive
survey to document contributors and the preparation of
design standards and guidelines.
Updated Statewide Historic Resources Survey and
Inventory for CAL FIRE, Statewide CA -
Architectural Historian- CAL FIRE
Conducted onsite survey and documentation of
multiple CAL FIRE properties in Riverside County,
including Lake Elsinore. Evaluated CAL FIRE sites
under CRHP and NRHP considerations. Researched
for and contributed to the development of the historic
context statement.
City of LA On-Call Section 106 Historic
Preservation Services Contract, Los Angeles
County, CA -Architectural Historian - Los Angeles
Housing and Community Investment Department
Provided on-call historic resources services for the City of Los Angeles, primarily related to historic properties affected by use of community development block
grants, including programs to provide housing and
shelter for homeless populations. Contributed to over
20 projects including Section 106 reviews,
identification of historic properties and determination of effects for properties.
State Inventory and Evaluation Forms for 300
Properties, Los Angeles County, CA-Architectural
Historian - City of South Pasadena
At a previous firm, conducted field research, took
photographs and wrote descriptions for 300 properties.
Selective Reconnaissance Level Survey Report of
the Lake Grove Neighborhood
Clackamas County, OR - Senior Architectural
Historian - City of Lake Oswego
Conducted RLS for the Lake Grove Neighborhood of
Lake Oswego, Oregon including approximately 125
properties. Conducted background research,
documented properties on Oregon Historic Site Forms,
and prepared the evaluation report.
33 156
157 of 165
ASM
Archaeology • Architectural History • History • Ethnography • GIS
TOT AL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
2 EDUCATION
M.A./Architectural History
B.A./Art History
PROFILE
Ms. Gonzalez has two years of experience
in historic preservation and meets the SOi 's
PQS for Architectural History. She earned
her B.A. in art history from Saint Mary 's
College of California, and her M.A. in
architectural history from the University of
Virginia where she also received a
certificate of preservation. At the University
of Virginia, she developed a thesis where
she researched the development of
commercial architecture in Los Angeles in
the early decades of the 20th century, and
where she developed a special interest in
the discovery and development of local
histories in Southern California. Since
joining ASM Affiliates, she has assisted in
numerous projects in Los Angeles County,
across California, and in Arizona. Her
major contributions thus far include onsite
survey, documentation, and evaluation of
over 20 CAL FIRE potential historic
districts, and onsite survey, documentation,
and evaluation ofover 100 individual
resources in a potential historic district
within the city of Glendale, California.
MADELINE GONZALEZ, M.A.
Architectural Historian
HIGHLIGHTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Mills Act Work Program Guidance, West
Hollywood and Los Angeles, Los Angeles County,
CA - Associate Architectural Historian - Lotus West
Conducted onsite survey and documentation of
resources in the cities of Los Angeles and West
Hollywood for assessment of Mills Act Program
compliance. Created summary and recommendations
for Mills Act compliance for a property in West
Hollywood, and created an updated Mills Act plan for
the prope11y.
Updated Statewide Historic Resources Survey and
Inventory for CAL FIRE, Statewide CA-Associate
Architectural Historian - CAL FIRE
Conducted onsite survey and documentation of
multiple CAL FIRE facilities across California.
Evaluated CAL FIRE sites under CRHP and NRHP
considerations. Researched for and contributed to the
development of the historic context statement.
Bellehurst Historic District Survey, Los Angeles
County, CA - Associate Architectural Historian - City
of Glendale
Conducted onsite survey and documentation of
individual resources in potential historic district.
Identified potential contributors, and prepared
evaluations for potential historic resources. Aided in
the development of the written report by contributing
to sections regarding local histories.
Determination of Eligibility for Circle X Ranch,
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area,
Los Angeles County, CA-Associate Architectural
Historian - Santa Monica Mountains National Park
Completed a DOE for the Circle X Ranch, a residential
property in the Santa Monica Mountains National
Recreation Area. Surveyed two historic buildings - a
barn completed circa 1964 and a house built in 1967.
Recommended that although Diamond X Ranch met
NRHP Criterion C, the house and barn no longer retain
sufficient integrity to convey their significance
34 157
158 of 165
Cultural Resources Technical Report for the
Lynden, Sumas, and Porthill Land Port of Entry
Expansion and Modernization Projects, Whatcom
County, WA and Boundary County, ID -Associate
Architectural Historian - Solv and GSA
Contributed to evaluation and assessment of historic
properties in the APE of the expansion of a US/Canada
border crossing station. Surveyed, research, and
evaluated one agricultural complex with residence,
barns, other agricultural buildings, and eight
commercial and institutional buildings. Recommended
not eligible and no potential for adverse effects per
Section 106 of the NHPA. GSA concurrence, pending
SHPO concurrence.
Vernon Specific Plan Cultural Resources Report,
Vernon, Los Angeles County, CA-Associate
Architectural Historian - Impact Sciences, Inc.
Conducted online survey and reviewed surrounding
previously recorded historic resources. Developed
local history summary, architectural history summary,
and recorded historical resources summary for written
report. A determination of effects were considered
under NEPA.
Master Plan Environmental Assessment for Marine
Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center,
Bridgeport, Mono County, CA - Associate
Architectural Historian - NAVF AC Southwest
Conducted on site survey and documentation of
potential historic resources and evaluated under
NRHP/CRHP considerations. A determination of
effects were considered under NEPA. Developed and
created appropriate context from historic research and
used on-site resources for archival research. Developed architectural history sections of written report.
Historic Resource Report for 1211 Stone Canyon
Road, Bel Air, Los Angeles County, CA - Associate
Architectural Historian - Rodrigo Vargas, Dylan
Harman (Homeowners)
Assessed building for eligibility under CRHP and
NRHP considerations. Conducted on site survey.
Conducted relevant site research utilizing both inperson archives and online research. Prepared and submitted sections of the written report.
35 158
159 of 165
ASM
Archaeology • Architectural Hislory • History • Ethnography • GIS
TOT AL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE
5 EDUCATION
M.A./Historic Preservation
B.A./lnterior Architecture
PROFILE
Ms. Padilla-Perez has a background in both
contemporary design & historic
preservation, and is committed to
advocating for the harmonious union
between the two. She specializes in
modernizing buildings with integrity by
integrating thoughtful design solutions,
historic preservation, and construction
consulting services. Ms. Padilla-Perez has
experience preparing site condition
documentation, preservation planning
submittals, Mills act work plans, design
reviews, and period appropriate design
plans, as well as conducting extensive
archival research. She has an M.A. in
Historic Preservation and a B.A. in Historic
Architecture and brings over 5 years of
experience to the field of Historic
Preservation. Prior to joining ASM, Ms.
Padilla-Perez served as a Contracted
Architectural Historian, responsible for
authoring architectural descriptions,
statements of significance and contexts for
historic properties.
JAQUELINE PADILA-PEREZ, M.A.
Architectural Historian
HIGHLIGHTED PROJECT EXPERIENCE
Alamitos Library Historic Window Survey and
Workplan for Fenestration Repairs, Los Angeles
County, CA- Historic Preservation Consultant- City
of Long Beach
Conducted a window survey to document the existing
conditions of the historic steel windows and wooden
doors and architectural details at the Alamitos Library in Long Beach. Work included a photo survey with
extensive assessment of each window, door and
architectural element for the purpose of making
recommendations for repair. A site plan with a legend
and corresponding workbook of all repairs with step by
step instructions was created for use by the client and contractor.
Mills Act Site Evaluation and Application for 186 S.
Cambridge St, Orange County, CA-Architectural
Historian - Jesse Jerling
Conducted a thorough site evaluation of the existing
conditions to determine the elements to include in the
workplan. The evaluation included measurements, site
plans and documentation of all site elements and a
photo survey. Authored the workplan and application
for submission to the city. Application received
approval.
Historic District ADU Design & COA Applications
for 3602 Gundry Ave, Los Angeles County, CADesigner/Architectural Historian - Mark & Reauna Lopez
Created construction documents for the conversion of
an existing two car garage into two, studio layout
AD Us working within the design guidelines for the
California Heights historic district in the City of Long Beach. Specified historically accurate windows, doors,
roofing materials and exterior light fixtures to
complement the existing mid century modern
multifamily dwelling. Completed the COA
applications required for the project including the
selection and COA application for a historically
accurate paint scheme for the existing multifamily
dwelling and ADUs.
36 159
160 of 165
Historic Resource Evaluation for 1311 Oaklawn Rd,
Los Angeles County, CA - Architectural Historian -
Peter Shah
Prepared an evaluation of a single family residence
located in the City of Arcadia within the context of
post WWII residential development. Conducted an
intensive reconnaissance survey, reviewed previous
surveys, permit records, assessor's records and chain of ownership. The evaluation was conducted to determine
the eligibility of the property under the California
Register of Historic Resources, and City of Arcadia
eligibility criteria and in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Historic Resource Evaluation for 1101 Drake Rd,
Los Angeles County, CA -Architectural Historian - :
Peter Shah
Prepared an evaluation of a single family residence
located in the City of Arcadia within the context of
post WWII residential development. Conducted an
intensive reconnaissance survey, reviewed previous
surveys, permit records, assessor's records and chain of ownership. The evaluation was conducted to determine
the eligibility of the property under the California
Register of Historic Resources, and City of Arcadia
eligibility criteria and in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Historic District ADU Design & COA Applications
for 3743 Lemon Ave, Los Angeles County, CADesigner/Architectural Historian - Mark & Reauna Lopez
Created construction documents for the conversion of
an existing single car garage into a studio layout ADU
working within the design guidelines for the California Heights historic district in the City of Long Beach.
Specified historically accurate windows, doors, roofing materials and exterior light fixtures to complement the existing Spanish revival single family dwelling.
Completed the COA applications required for the
project.
Culver Studios Historic Research, Los Angeles
County, CA -Architectural Historian -Amazon
Studios
Assisted the senior architectural historian in
researching the history of Culver Studios which was
originally established as a silent film movie studio in 1980. Provided research and archival photographs to
the senior architectural historian for inclusion in the historic resource repo1i.
37 160
161 of 165
Attachment 4
161
162 of 165
162
163 of 165
164 of 165
165 of 165
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
BUSINESS
11 SUBJECT: CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES (AND
ISSUE-BY-ISSUE DIRECTION)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Confirm the City Council Strategic Priorities for Calendar Year 2026 and issue-by-issue direction, as discussed at the January 30, 2026, Strategic Planning Session and as addressed in this staff report;
2. Direct staff to align departmental work plans, performance measures, and budget development with the adopted priorities; and
3. Find that confirmation of the 2026 Strategic Priorities is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not constitute a project.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On January 30, 2026, the City Council held its annual Strategic Planning Session to review progress on 2025 priorities, evaluate the City’s fiscal outlook, and establish key focus areas for 2026. This item formalizes the direction provided at that session and returns for confirmation in accordance with the City’s annual agenda process.
Following discussion and Council direction, four overarching Strategic Priorities were identified for Calendar Year 2026:
1. Wildfire Mitigation and Prevention Plan Implementation
2. City Fiscal Sustainability
3. Stewardship Implementation
4. Advanced Planning and Long-Range Policy Initiatives
Confirmation of these priorities establishes policy direction for 2026 and guides departmental work plans, performance tracking, capital improvement planning and funding, and budget development. No specific appropriations are requested through this action at this time.
DISCUSSION
On January 30, 2026, the City Council conducted its annual Strategic Planning Session to review prior-year progress, assess the City’s fiscal outlook, and establish priorities for 2026. As discussed during the workshop, no formal action is taken at the session itself. Staff returns with this item to formally confirm the Strategic Priorities discussed at that meeting.
1 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
Based on Council discussion, four overarching priority themes were identified for Calendar Year 2026.
These are discussed below, with a matrix (Attachment 1) that describes these and other efforts in more detail.
1. Wildfire Plan Implementation
Wildfire mitigation and preparedness remain the City’s highest public safety priority. In September 2025, the City Council approved the updated Wildfire Mitigation & Fire Safety Report, identifying 75 action items across evacuation planning, fuel modification, public safety technology, community preparedness, and infrastructure.
During the Strategic Planning Session, Council reviewed 2025 progress and emphasized continued implementation of the adopted action items, with a focus on transitioning from plan development to sustained execution—particularly in situational awareness, interagency coordination, and alert system redundancy.
Council also discussed lessons learned from recent wildfire events in other jurisdictions, emphasizing the need for:
• Improved real-time operational coordination;
• A centralized and “ready to go” Emergency Operations Center (EOC); • Expanded outdoor warning system coverage to supplement cellular alerts; • Significant improvement in cellular phone coverage and reliability; and • Continued regional integration of response technologies. 2026 Focus
The 2026 priorities emphasize further progress on the previously adopted measures, including:
• Advancing EOC resiliency planning and facility hardening to enhance coordination and policy-level decision-making during emergencies;
• Expanding and improving outdoor warning system infrastructure; • Expanding our fuel modification zones (FMZs) and defensible space enforcement; • Implementing public safety technology upgrades, including regional resource coordination platforms,
• Improving cell coverage and reliability across the region; and • Integrating wildfire resiliency considerations into capital planning and facility modernization efforts.
2. City Fiscal Sustainability
The Council reviewed updated General Fund projections and long-term financial forecasts, identifying structural fiscal headwinds, including:
• Expenditure growth outpacing revenue growth;
2 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
• Rising insurance, personnel, and contracted service costs; • Significant capital facility needs noted in the Facilities Master Plan; • Flattening of sales tax revenues; and
• Near-term Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) constraints due to temporary hotel closures.
While the City maintains a strong property tax base and healthy reserves, Council emphasized the importance of proactive financial planning to maintain structural balance and preserve long-term service levels.
The discussion also included a review of internal operational improvements made in 2025, including strengthened financial controls, improved procurement practices, enhanced forecasting tools, and completion of key organizational initiatives.
Facilities Master Plan Integration
A significant component of the fiscal discussion involved the phased Facilities Master Plan (FMP), which outlines long-term modernization of critical City facilities. Council reviewed the tranchebased implementation strategy and emphasized the importance of:
• Breaking up capital investments in phases;
• Prioritizing public safety and resiliency projects; and • Aligning facility modernization with available fiscal capacity and long-term financial modeling.
Tranche 1 is estimated at approximately $25 million, with subsequent phases estimated at approximately $20 million and additional long-term needs beyond those amounts. For illustrative purposes, at an assumed 4% interest rate over 30 years, each $1 million in new annual revenue could support approximately $17 million in bonded capital financing. These financing relationships underscore the importance of aligning phased implementation with sustainable revenue strategies.
Additional details on the tranche structure and other assumptions are provided in Attachment 2. 2026 Focus
Consistent with Council direction, the 2026 fiscal sustainability priority includes:
• Improving and using long-term financial projections;
• Evaluating potential revenue measures for 2026 ballot consideration to support operational and capital improvements to infrastructure;
• Considering asking the voters to approve a City Charter to improve fiscal flexibility and governance;
• Be more efficient overall, including measuring performance; and • Deciding how to phase the projects listed in the Facilities Master Plan. 3 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
Advancement of specific capital projects, funding strategies, or revenue measures may return to the City Council for separate consideration.
3. Stewardship
The Strategic Planning Session reviewed 2025 stewardship efforts, including an enhanced summer surge program, expanded staffing, improved coordination with Visit Laguna Beach, and strengthened visitor education messaging from both VLB and the City.
Council acknowledged measurable progress in reducing overtourism impacts and improving enforcement coordination. The 2026 priority shifts from pilot efforts and program development toward sustained implementation and refinement.
2026 Focus
• Continued coordination with community and tourism partners to promote responsible visitor behavior;
• Ongoing management of peak visitation impacts;
• Protection of coastal, open space, and cultural resources; and • Integration of stewardship principles into operational and capital planning decisions.
4. Advance Planning and Long-Range Policy Initiatives
During the Strategic Planning Session, Council discussed how major long-range planning efforts should be unified into a defined Advanced Planning effort. This priority reflects a shift from operational process improvements in 2025 (though those must continue) and toward comprehensive, forward-looking planning initiatives that shape the regulatory framework, environmental stewardship, fiscal sustainability, and the City’s capital investment strategy.
The Council identified the following initiatives as core components of this strategic theme:
• Comprehensive Zoning Code Update
• An update of our General Plan, especially:
o The Housing Element
o The Open Space & Conservation Element
o The Safety Element
• Amending our Local Coastal Program
• Completing the Design Review Efficiency Ordinance
• Improving our Historic Resource management
• Completing the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), Phase II process (which considers where second and third-story housing could be added to the Downtown).
Collectively, these efforts are intended to ensure that land use policy, environmental protection, housing objectives, and facility modernization decisions are aligned and implemented in a coordinated manner. 4 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
These initiatives position the City for improved regulatory clarity, infrastructure modernization, environmental stewardship, and housing compliance, while ensuring that policy decisions remain integrated with fiscal planning and capital improvement strategies.
Implementation
Upon confirmation of the 2026 Strategic Priorities, staff will implement the following actions to ensure alignment across operations, budgeting, and performance management:
• Departmental work plans will be formally aligned with the adopted Strategic Priorities to ensure operational focus and resource coordination.
• Development of the Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget will reflect priority-based resource allocation and long-term financial planning assumptions.
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) planning and Facilities Master Plan sequencing will incorporate adopted priority direction and fiscal capacity considerations. • New for this year, performance measures and milestone tracking will be integrated into Envisio to provide transparency and accountability.
• Periodic progress updates will be provided to the City Council throughout the year, including budget workshops and strategic reporting intervals.
Issue-by-Issue Check-In
Separate from considering the priorities, Council discussed and gave direction on:
1. Revenue Measure. There was a general consensus to proceed forward with a community discussion and Town Halls about a possible revenue measure for the November 2026 ballot. This could be a sales tax, a hotel bed tax, or a business license tax change.
2. Aliso Beach Parking Lot. There was a general consensus to redirect staff’s efforts following community input to a “no change” repaving of the ocean side of the lot (without decreasing space size or increasing the number of spaces) but a redesign and paving of the inland side to address ADA concerns, add spaces where possible, and improve egress and ingress.
3. Laguna Canyon Road. There was a general consensus to have staff bring back a detailed report on LCR’s possible relinquishment well before the June 30, 2026, deadline for letting Caltrans know if the City will pursue relinquishment at all at this time.
4. Emergency Operations Center. This was resolved on February 10, 2026, with a direction to pursue the CRC site as at least a temporary but fully-built-out EOC. Staff confirmed with the contractor that the contractor would hold their initial bid pricing, including for a generator.
5. Funding for Housing. Council discussed moving all Short-Term Lodging revenue towards the housing fund (about $900,000 per year) versus just a portion of those funds and versus the allocation of Property Taxes when Property Taxes come in higher than estimated. This will be discussed and further resolved in the context of the FY 2026-27 budget adoption process.
6. FMP. With the FMP nearing completion, Council was anxious to pick a pathway and start down it.
Attachment B is one proposed way of doing that.
5 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
7. Deciding what to do with the CRC. Council had a general consensus not to take any action on the CRC before partnering with a real estate expert advisor to study and recommend alternative uses, including but not limited to property sale, lease, or retention. Uses could be the current use, market rate and/or affordable housing, or a hotel (or some combination).
8. Drones for Beach Patrols. Council was interested in learning more about both Drones as a First Responder (“DFR”) and drones to monitor late night access to coves and beaches where such access is precluded or unsafe.
Additionally and of note, we realize that we have spoken to the Council in public about how to approach Mills Act applications for 2026 (as a reminder, the Mills Act is a provision of California law that allows owners of historic properties to enter into contract with local governments to pay lower property taxes and instead invest the reduction in improvements to the home). We now have a note on our website that explains that the City will not be accepting or processing new Mills Act applications this time of year as would have been typical in years past. The application process is paused until such time as the Council has had additional input as to these key issues, among others:
• What improvements could a property owner make that would be eligible for the Mills Act property tax reduction (i.e. the improvements should be meaningful to the property’s historicity and protection of historicity).
• Should there be a tighter duration of time during which improvements should be made? • What’s the best review process for ensuring the completion of the improvements? Council’s further discussion about any of these items is welcomed.
A handful of attachments are included that may be helpful to the public’s or Council’s edification. These include:
• Attachment 1, which is a work in progress, but includes an effort to summarize both the key initiative steps and a variety of other special efforts that are on the City’s plate, by department. • Attachment 2, which is a summary of General Plan elements and information; and • Attachment 3, which is a proposed approach for implementing the FMP, and • Attachment 4 & 5, link to the Strategic Planning Session Agenda and YouTube Video
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with confirmation of the 2026 Strategic Priorities, and no appropriations are requested through this action.
However, implementation of the adopted priorities will guide development of the Fiscal Year 2026–27 budget, Capital Improvement Program sequencing, and long-term financial modeling. Future expenditures, capital projects, financing strategies, or revenue measures will be returned to the City Council for separate consideration and approval, in accordance with City purchasing policies and budget procedures. 6 of 192
CONFIRMATION OF 2026 CITY COUNCIL STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
DIRECTION
February 24, 2026
ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES
This item establishes the City Council’s Strategic Priorities for Calendar Year 2026 and therefore directly defines and advances the Council’s policy direction. Adopting these priorities provides a framework for resource allocation, performance measurement, and long-term planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Confirmation of the 2026 Strategic Priorities is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it does not constitute a “project.” The action involves approval of a strategic policy framework and does not authorize specific development, construction, or physical changes to the environment. Any future projects or capital improvements resulting from these priorities will be subject to separate environmental review, as required.
The exceptions to categorical exemptions identified in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 do not apply because this action does not involve a physical project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. 2026 Key and Other Priorities DRAFT Matrix (Pgs. 8-22)
2. General Plan information (Pgs. 23-25)
3. Facilities Master Plan Proposed Pathway (Pgs. 26-27)
4. Link to the January 30, 2026, Strategic Planning Session Agenda https://lagunabeachcity.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=665
5. Link to the January 30, 2026, YouTube Video of the Session https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtGA0I6lTYg
Submitted By: Gavin Curran Approved: .David A Kiff
Gavin Curran, Assistant City
Manager
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Gavin Curran, Assistant City Manager Dave Kiff, City Manager Department Directors
7 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
Key Priority for 2026 Description Level of Priority Next Steps Hurdles Wildfire Preparedness Fire and Police Lead
1 -- FMZ Expansion Appropriately grow the acreage of Fuel Mod Zones citywide to protect against wildfire. High Further design and permitting. Identifying further funding. 2 -- FMZ Maintenance Appropriately fund and maintain new and older FMZs High Ensure that annual budgets have enough resources to appropriately accomplish maintenance
Identifying further funding. Heavy rain years like this make it more expensive.
3 -- Community Education Provide great community eduction and drills to accomplish best in class community response to wildfires. High Presentations begin March 2026. N/A - Underway 4 -- Improving Cell Phone
Coverage
Working with CDD and carries to place more macro-sites (with 8 hours of power) across the community.
Will continue to meet with carriers to guage interest in expanding sites.
Need to consider code changes to add more certainty to the carriers' placement concepts.
5 -- EOC Construction Construction of a new Emergency Operations Center High Council award on 2-24 Ordering long-lead items.
Stewardship City Manager's Office Lead
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
8 Attachment 1
8 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
6 -- Rightsizing
Services/Surge
City's role is to upsize and downsize services to meet demands, enforce laws, reduce impacts. High Considered within Mid-Year budget and FY 26-27 Budget. Funding constraints 7 -- Messaging with VLB Improving messaging such that visitors to LB help protect what's special to us all. High VLB taking the lead on most messaging City's communication effort has been adjusted.
Fiscal Sustainability Finance and CM's Office Lead
8 -- Cost Reductions Work to reduce expenditures via a prioritization consistent with community and Council wishes. High FY 26-27 Budget Workshops and presentation of Mid-Year Budget Takeaways are tough. 9 -- Revenue Measure
Discussion Inform the community as to a possible revenue measure in Fall 2026 High Town halls and community meetings across 2026 Community will naturally have a reluctance to approve new revenues unless they are confident that we're doing all we can to reduce costs.
10 -- Economic Development Improve the City's business climate by assisting private sector entities with City processes.
High Ongoing
City's processes remain cumbersome - DR Efficiency
Ordinance will help, as will updates to Special Events
permitting.
9 9 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
Advanced Planning Efforts CDD and CAO Lead
11 -- CZCU Update the Zoning Code to reflect modern practices - focus on parking standards outside of downtown and ODS first High Reports will come in and be considered in public meetings and hearings, including at PC
ODS will remain controversial in some quarters, given how different it is from Design Review.
12 -- Objective Design
Standards ("ODS") required by the State for many housing efforts - a parallel pathway to Design Review High ODS will remain controversial in some quarters, given how different it is from Design Review. 13 -- General Plan Update Would include an update of Housing Element and Open Space Element, among others (possibly Safety update) High Will be fairly extensive -- we'll bring a workplan back before May 2026.
The Housing Element's next iteration will be very challenging to accomplish (likely to include our current RHNA gap and an entirely new RHNA assignment)
14 -- Local Coastal Program
Update Would be in concert with the GP update. High Will be fairly extensive -- we'll bring a workplan back before May 2026. Goal is a stand-alone LCP. Must be approved by the Coastal Commission, too. 16 -- DR Efficiency Ordinance Reducing the amount of projects that need to go through DR. High Set for PC on March 18, 2026 Because this would mean less projects go through detailed DR, community members will have varying levels of support and concern.
17 -- Historic Resources Mgmt Ensuring that historic properties are managed correctly and appropraitely preserved Medium Aspects of this will be on the 2-24 agenda 10 10 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
18 -- DSP, Phase II Implementing 2nd and 3rd story housing in the downtown, per Housing Element. High Completion of the EIR (we're in the public comment period now for the NOP)
Already an issue with significant community discussion - EIR will drive further dialogue.
19 -- Outdoor Dining
Ordinance Program to replace the interim outdoor dining program started in 2020 Medium Draft policy and ordinance language Project is on hold pending staff availability 20 -- Mills Act Program Review of best practices to determine if updates to City’s program are needed Medium Research best practices from other jurisdications. Right now, we've paused accepting new applications Project is on hold pending staff availability 21 -- View Preservation and
Restoration Update
Updates to reflect lessons learned and best practices identified since the program’s inception
Medium
Conduct a comprehensive review of recommendations from
the View Preservation Committee and staff to identify potential ordinance updates
Project is on hold pending staff availability
22 -- Eviction Noticing
Updates Updates to noticing and reporting requirments for tenant evictions Medium Staff-led project with input and coordination from the Housing and Human Services Committee Project is on hold pending staff availability 23 Community & Recreation
Center - Zoning Overlay Project is on hold pending staff availability 24 -- Fee Study Hire Third party consultant to complete a comprehensive fee study for all CD fees, last study conducted in 2021
Medium Draft an RFP Project is on hold pending staff availability Other Time-Intensive
Efforts Description Level of Priority Next Steps Hurdles 11 11 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
Public Works
25 Aliso Beach Parking Lot Re-doing the parking lot with either minor or major changes High Bid out and complete the work. Determination generally made to re-stripe ocean lot "as is," try to ID more spaces in the inland lot.
26 Laguna Canyon Road
Relinquishment Deciding if accepting LCR from Caltrans is the right decision for the City. High Bring a detailed staff report to Council by April 2026. Dealine to respond to the $14.4M is 6-30-26.
Caltrans' limitations and regulations, proper fact gathering and transmittal, understanding all options.
27 Playground MP - Village
Green Modifying or replacing the VG playground High Seek input from the entity that did the current improvements. Ensuring appropriate safety and ADA compliance, respecting long-time community wishes and ideas.
28 Fire Station #4 Constructing S Laguna's Fire Station High Demolition is pending, but slightly delayed due to a bird nest.
Bid wall construction in March. Return to PC on March 18 for consultation of colors, surface materials.
Bid pricing and identification of any additional funds needed. 29 Promenade Construction Completing the Project. High Underway if it stops raining. Getting it done with minimal disruption to businesses and the downtown.
30 Undergrounding
12 12 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
31 -- Citywide District
Undergrounding
Dividing up and costing out the remainder of the city's neighborhoods with above-ground utilities.
Medium Study underway Gaining support from property owners to approve the districts. 32 -- Woods Cove A project nearing completion. High Individual residents' connnections Several properties to coordinate in a timely mannner. 33 -- West Street Construction of underground infrastructure to start March 9. High Construction of underground infrastructure. Narrow roadways and neighborhood impacts. 34 -- Fairview/La Brea Bond sale to be presented to City Council in April. High Complete bond sale. 35 -- Old TOW A project just recently activated for preliminary design and assessment report. Medium Initiate utility agreements and designs. Acquisition of public utility easements over private street. 36 Downtown Improvements -
Ocean and Beach Streetscape improvements on Ocean and part of Beach St. Medium Design underway. Planning Commission hearing scheduled for March 2026. Funding identification within CIP. 37 Tree Approach Deciding whether we crown-reduce or lightly trim trees (or something in between), replacement plantings, tree removal noticing, ways to reduce liability, more.
Medium Plan to bring back an update to Council in March 2026 Community disagreement, community planning documents are prescriptive.
13 13 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
38 Library Renovation A County - City project to renovate the OCPL branch in Laguna Medium Project is with architect now - request for expanded scope to be presented to City Council on March 10 for consideration. Some desire to see a larger project with an additional level. 39 Wastewater Gov Study
(w/CMO) How should our wastewater function be staffed, benchmarked, governed, placed? HIgh About to bring on consultant after RFP - March 2026 Could involve contracting out or realigning WW service model, could recommend different staffing.
Community Development
40 Current Planning Pacing Keeping the Zoning Plan Check (ZPC) backlog a thing of the past. HIgh CDD staff will regularly update the Council and community Very dependent upon staff capability and #s of applications in. 41 Building Dept Staffing Speeding up our review and inspection timing. HIgh Hiring new inspectors now, working with contractors for more inspection time. Tight labor market for these roles - even in the consultant field. 42 Code Enforcement - Villa
Rockledge Protecting this resource on the National Historic Register HIgh Possible receivership Expensive property, extensive costs to remedy problems, accessibilty/interest of owner. 14 14 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
43 View Preservation /
Restoration Orders Deciding whether this system should continue versus be sunsetted soon. Medium TBD - Council conversation soon. System is challeging to implement, equally challenging and costly to secure compliance.
Human Resources
44 Class and Comp Study Evaluating where we are and should be in the marketplace for City employees. HIgh Finalizing by April 2026 Expensive to fully implement, extensive negotiations ahead.
Finance
45 Tyler Implementation Finishing the activation of our Enterprise Resource Planning software HIgh Close to full implementation now Bug-removing. 46 Catching our Audit
Schedule Up Getting annual audits done by December 31 of each year HIgh Current auditors making progress on their first year Keeping appropriate staffing in Finance. 15 15 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
47 CD Fee Catch-up Bringing CD fees up to inflation and closer to full cost recovery. HIgh Simple to do if we inflate 2021 study. Goal is to do that for the FY 26-27 budget adoption. Community education and reaction. 48 Impact Fee Study (w/CD,
CM, CAO)
Ensuring we are charging new development / significant redevelopment a fee that can be used for parks, housing, and more when a new project impacts City services and programs.
Medium
Project halted with consultant. Planning to contract with another consultant; possible funding issue to address with MidYear Budget.Community education and reaction. 49 Sewer Rate Study (w/PW) Combining our Wasterwater Master Plan goals with our operational costs to ensure we are collecting appropriate fees to run the WW system.
Medium Planned for work in Fall 2026 once Benchmarking is done, Prop 218 hearings in early 2027. Community education and reaction.
Transit & Community
Services
50 Trolley Rightsizing If Trolley schedules are reduced, what's the most efficient reduction? HIgh Study underway now. Could be a takeaway from existing service levels 51 Trolley RFP Competitively bid Trolley operations HIgh Preparing RFP now - expect to go out to bid early March Could be a challenge to get multiple vendors 16 16 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
52 Laguna Local Rightsizing If Laguna Local schedules are reduced, what's the most efficient reduction? What about a fare? HIgh Study underway now. Could be a takeaway from existing service levels 53 Laguna Local RFP Competitively bid Local operations HIgh Preparing RFP now as part of the Trolley RFP Could be a challenge to get multiple vendors 54 Pool and Related JUA With new pool nearing, update overall Joint Use Agreement Medium Should be done by end of 2026 No significant hurdles right now, besides fitting into workloads. 55 Holiday Lighting Decision Decide w/Chamber next iteration of holiday lights, issue RFP. Medium Should decide by April 2026 Community is used to certain type and level of decorations 56 Parking Rate CDP Update parking rates for next 5 years High Passed by Planning Commission on February 18, 2026 57 South Laguna Parking
Expansion New pay stations along PCH in South Laguna High Staff to meet with CCC to explore a pilot project S of Aliso Beach, coast side of PCH Obtaining CDP and getting new parking approved that was not perviously designated as paid parking.
17 17 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
58 Updating Special Events
Code and Policies Improving and reducing bureacraticness of Special Event process Medium Coming back to Council on March 24, 2026 59 Centennial Preparation Coordinating the City's 100th birthday celebration, with VLB and Chamber High Identify funding source and candidate(s) for lead consultant or Limited Term staff
Identfying best funding source - maybe City's share of TMD funds for one year.
60 Bike Pump Track Decide whether and where to have one. Low Site determination is next - possibly something temporary. "low" because of funding and workload capacity. No identified resources to fund construction or to go through site process.
Marine Safety
61 Tower Replacement
Program Ongoing replacement of temp towers with enclosed and mounted towers Medium Ongoing as budget allows A workplace safety measure to reduce LG exposure to sun's rays / skin cancer
62 Title 18 Updates (with Rec) Improving beach safety regulations Medium Planned to be brought back to Council in March or April 2026 May involve phasing in some changes to ensure better public compliance.
63 Coastal Observation
Cameras Improving beach safety Medium Ongoing as budget allows Adding cameras to properties that the city doesn't own. Requires an agreement with the property owner. 18 18 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
64 Lifeguard Tower
Communication Improving beach safety and lifeguard infastructure Medium Ongoing as budget allows Provide improved communication for lifeguard towers in South Laguna. The towers in South Laguna didn't have a hard-wired connection to Marine Safety Dispatch when the city assumed operations in 2023.
CMs Office
65 Aliso Creeek Estuary Doing environmental work for this project. Medium EIR is underway, anticipated to be done in Fall 2026 Funding for construction of the project. 66 Hospital Response / Action
Plan
Devise the community and City's response to a pending change at Mission Hospital, Laguna Beach High Ad Hoc Committee formed, will outline possible steps in March 2026
67 Dog Park - PMMC - Pantry
Master Plan
Improve circulation and placement of these three (and more) competing interests along Laguna Canyon Road
Medium CM has met with folks individually, will attempt to meet as a larger group first part of March 2026 Various levels of agreement/disagreement as to next steps. 68 Fiscal Sustainability
Discussions
Inform the Council and community of next steps to make City gov't more fiscally sustainable. High Ongoing with Town Halls and Community Forums 19 19 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
69 Revamp of
Communications
Better communicate with residents and businesses. Medium ACM working on a plan that would improve comms and save $$ from last full-staffing scenario
70 Property sales/acquisition Consider where to sell property, acquite open space, appraise, more. Medium Ongoing. 71 City Charter (with CAO) Prepare for November 2026 ballot measure Medium Further refinement of draft Charter for public and Council review. As a reminder, this can only be approved by the voters. 72 LCAD - Housing and Parking
(w/CAO)
Respond to inquiries from LCAD as to housing and parking needs as the Campus changes.
Medium Action item on parking for 2024, housing application going through process.
73 CRC Options Analysis What are the best options / future for the Community and Recreation Center? High Need to issue an RFP for a real estate partner, conduct Surplus Land Act analysis
Council action will likely be dependent on outcome of real estate partner's study.
74 Faciilities Master Plan
(FMP) Approach Now that it's about done, pick a pathway and cost and phase it out. High Will come to Council on Feb 24th, 2026 Key issue will be what can be funded and when. 20 20 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
75 NCC Church Housing Follow-up on actions relating to this 29-unit affordable housing project at the Neighborhood Congregational Church. High
Staff is working with NCC and the developer to complete the submittal. The project is expected to be presented to the Planning Commission for review in April or May. A funding request will also be brought forward to the City Council for consideration during that timeframe.
The timing is contingent upon the applicant providing a complete submittal to the City for review and preparation for the Planning Commission.
76 New CAD system (w/IT, PD,
Fire, MS) A major IT item to migrate to a new Computer Aided Dispatch model. High Next steps include a series of trainings, software
configurations, and hardware buildouts through project
completion, which is anticipated in October 2026.
77 Receivership Issues -
MOM/Investco, Hotel
Laguna
Address needs that arise in this private-sector BK case. Medium No news yet on a possible owner for these properties. City's role has been to brief potential buyers on Coastal and code issues.
78 Pacific Edge Hotel Planning Assist the Pacific Edge redevelopment team to scerute entitlements, permits, and to rapidly remodel this hotel. High Ongoing. Next step is Coastal call-up in April 2026 79 Envisio Implementation Tracks City Council goals and priorities, and provides transparent reporting to Council and the public High Finalize the framework and KPIs, set up and integrate data, provide training to departments Other
21 21 of 192
Date: Feb 24, 2026
2026 Key and Other Priorities Summary
80 Irvine Bowl Use Plan
(w/CAO) Deciding how to increase concert and event use at the Irvine Bowl. High Neighborhood impacts, getting to a consensus on sound levels, sound systems, amounts of events. 22 22 of 192
Element Last
Updated
Part
of
LCP?
Key Considerations
Historic Resources 2022 No Considerations for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• The City is currently undertaking a comprehensive review of its Historic Register to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and effectiveness of its historic preservation program, with the assistance of a consultant. These learnings may inform the next updates to this element.
Housing 2024 No Considerations for State Law:
• The City is currently in the 6th cycle (2021-2029). For the 7th cycle covering the 2029-2037 planning cycle, the City will be required to have its housing element certified by HCD no later than 10/15/29 to maintain compliance with Housing Element Law.
Local Considerations:
• Early planning will significantly reduce the risk of falling out of compliance with state Housing Element Law, which would subject the City to Builder’s Remedy.
Human Needs 1976 No Considerations for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• It has been 50 years since this element was last updated. Laguna Beach has changed substantially in that time, and updates are needed to reflect current personal and social needs of residents
Land Use 2025 Yes Considerations for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• The Land Use Element is a core element that is referenced when reviewing development applications and covers a myriad of topics, many of which relate to other elements of the General Plan.
Attachment 2
23 23 of 192
Landscape and
Scenic Highways
2018 No Considerations for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• As a relatively new element to the City’s General Plan, updates are anticipated to focus on consistency with other elements and the City’s Zoning Code.
Noise Element 2005 Yes Considerations for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• Updates will focus on consistency with other elements and the Zoning Code.
Open Space and
Conservation
2005 Yes Considerations for State Law:
• SB 272 (Laird, 2023): requires all coastal cities to develop a sea-level-rise adaptation plan by January 1, 2034, and incorporate the plan into the Local Coastal Program
• SB 1425 (Stern, 2022): requires cities to update their open space plans by January 1, 2026, to address three specific topics:
o If an environmental justice (EJ) element is required, address equitable access to open space for all residents, correlated with the EJ element o Climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space, correlated with the safety element
o Rewilding opportunities, as defined, correlated with the land use element • AB 1889 (Friedman, 2024): require cities and counties to review and update the conservation element of their general plans in the next adoption or revision of one or more elements on or after January 1, 2028, to:
o identify and analyze connectivity areas, permeability, and natural landscape areas within the jurisdiction;
o identify and analyze existing or planned wildlife passage features to ensure that planned development does not undermine their effectiveness;
o consider the impacts of development and the barriers caused by development to wildlife and habitat connectivity;
o avoid, minimize, or mitigate impacts and barriers to wildlife movement to the extent feasible; and
24 24 of 192
o analyze and consider opportunities to remediate existing barriers to wildlife connectivity and restore degraded habitat and open space.
Local Considerations:
• Preliminary efforts to update the Open Space and Conservation Element have already been initiated. These efforts include the formation of a Community Working Group and a City Council Ad Hoc Committee, as well as the engagement of a consultant to update the City’s biological resources map
• The City has already identified a need to update its watercourse maps due to changes in watercourse conditions, both natural and manmade.
Safety 2025 No Consideration for State Law:
N/A
Local Considerations:
• This element will be closely coordinated with the Transportation, Circulation, and Growth Management Element, as discussed below.
Transportation,
Circulation, and
Growth Management
1992 Consideration for State Law:
• AB 1358 (Leno, 2008): Requires a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways, in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan.
Local Considerations:
• As conditions and priorities have evolved, the City will revisit policies related to evacuation routes, emergency access, and the preservation of the full functional width of rights-of-way, including the use and regulation of revocable encroachment permits.
25 25 of 192
City of Laguna Beach
Facility Master Plan – Phased Approach (PROPOSED / DRAFT 2-24-2026) The Facility Master Plan provides a structured, phased approach to modernizing critical City facilities over a 20-year planning horizon. The Plan prioritizes public safety resiliency, operational efficiency, community-serving facilities, and long-term infrastructure sustainability.
The implementation strategy is organized into three general investment phases, allowing the City to align capital commitments with fiscal capacity and potential revenue opportunities.
Tranche #1 (Years 0–5) focuses on immediate public safety and facility resiliency needs, including:
• Design and construction of a new Fire Station No. 1 near City Hall • Using existing funds and the County’s design team to upgrade the Laguna Beach Branch Library (a “phase 1” of a two-phase project)
• Seismically retrofit Fire Stations No. 2 and No. 3
• Consider ADA improvements to the Forum Theater to make it fully operational. • Evaluation of a public-private partnership (P3) parking structure either at the Village Entrance or at Act V.
• Consider design, CEQA, and permitting of a space expansion at City Hall (consider completing the second story behind the historic City Hall structure, as well as considering a 2nd or 3rd story on the current non-historic City Hall North. Construction would occur later and/or in phases, depending on revenue. A priority here would be ro relocate the Dispatch Center from cramped quarters in the PD.
The estimated investment for this phase is approximately $25 million, a small portion of which is already identified.
Tranche #2 (Years 5–10) would focus on:
• The City Hall space expansion, especially in regards to:
o Fire Admin (possibly over City Hall North)
o Relocation of the EOC from the CRC (also to City Hall North operational consolidation and reuse of existing facilities;
o Relocation of Public Works from its current site to the new second story space behind City Hall.
o Repurposing the former Fire Station No. 1 site for either Police Department expansion, community space, or another City use.
Attachment 3
26 26 of 192
The estimated investment for this phase is approximately $30 million, none of which is identified at this time.
Tranche #3 (Years 10–20) tries to address long-term recreational and fire facility reconstruction needs, including:
• The redevelopment of Lang Park, including a gymnasium replacement, pickleball court relocation, and parking expansion;
• Reconstruction of Fire Stations No. 2 and No. 3.
The estimated investment for this phase is approximately $42 million, none of which is identified at this time.
The total conceptual investment across all phases is approximately $97 million. The table below summarizes each phase.
Table 1: Facilities Master Plan Implementation
Phase Timeframe Estimated
Cost Key Focus
Tranche 1 Years 0–5 ~$25M Public safety, Library, seismic upgrades
Tranche 2 Years 5–10 ~$30M Admin consolidation, PD expansion, reuse
Tranche 3 Years 10–20 ~$42M Lang Park, full fire station rebuilds Total 20 Years ~$97M Phased modernization
27 27 of 192
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
BUSINESS
12 SUBJECT: ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL PROGRAM; AND UPDATE ON LAGUNA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN’S APPLICATION TO
RENT CERTAIN PARKING LOTS AND SPACES AT CERTAIN TIMES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF LCAD’S INNOVATION CENTER
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Adoption the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL PROGRAM; AND FINDING THE ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15304”;
2. Receive a presentation from City staff on Laguna College of Art and Design’s request to rent certain City parking lots in 2026 at certain times during construction of LCAD’s innovation center at LCAD’s Big Bend portion of its campus and request to pay $5,000 for the use of such temporary parking in 2026; and
3. Find the actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4)
DISCUSSION
The City of Laguna Beach (“City”) operates various parking lots open to the public throughout the City.
The City currently has a program whereby it rents out certain parking lots on an ad hoc basis to various parties and community groups attending establishments within the City. In response to a request from the Laguna College of Art and Design (“LCAD”) to rent certain parking lots during the construction of LCAD’s innovation center at LCAD’s Big Bend portion of its campus, City staff has taken the opportunity to formalize the City’s program through preparation of a City Council Resolution (Attachment 1), which establishes a city-wide program for renting out parking lots and spaces on a temporary basis, known as the City Parking Lot Rental Program, and the rules and regulations for such program. For temporary parking permits issued on a non-exclusive basis, the applicant and those authorized under the permit can display a City-issued or other City-recognized placard that can be displayed on the vehicle’s dashboard or rear-view mirror. For temporary parking permits issued on an exclusive basis, City-issued signs and rope can be displayed at the entrances of the at issue parking lot. As part of the program, the applicant will be required to enter into an agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with the City that sets forth the applicant’s obligations to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claim or damage asserted by a third party relating to the City Parking Lot Rental Program or temporary parking permit, and to maintain adequate forms and limits of insurance, at the determination of the Risk Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. It should be noted that a coastal development permit for updated parking rates is currently under consideration by the City and may be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission. The City will apply the effective parking rates at the time an application is submitted and at the time the decision is rendered.
1 of 207
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL PROGRAM; AND UPDATE ON LAGUNA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN’S APPLICATION TO RENT CERTAIN PARKING
LOTS AND SPACES AT CERTAIN TIMES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF LCAD’S INNOVATION CENTER
February 24, 2026
City staff intends to assist LCAD through the application process whereby LCAD seeks the exclusive use of up to 35 weekday and Saturday spaces in Lot 16 (Act V), the non-exclusive use on weekdays of all of the 65 spaces in Lot 10, and the non-exclusive use on weekdays of the on-street parking (about 25 spaces) next to Lot 10 on Laguna Canyon Rd. (Attachment 2.) Logistics and marshalling operations near the Innovation Center will significantly reduce parking for faculty and students and necessitate coordination of parking for students and faculty. Students and faculty would be transported to LCAD via an LCAD-funded parking shuttle. This temporary parking would be for weekdays only during the period of February 27 through May 31, 2026 as well as from August 15 to December 20, 2026. This temporary parking would also cover Saturdays during the same dates, but with a smaller amount of students and faculty. During these Saturdays, LCAD would use the Act V lot exclusively versus the on-street parking along Laguna Canyon Road or the Lot 10 parking spaces. However, a previously permitted event on Friday, May 8 would preclude LCAD’s use of Lot 10 on May 8, 2026. In the event that the Innovation Center construction lasts into 2027, City staff envisions that it is possible to extend the temporary parking permit through Spring 2027, provided that the use has not been problematic for the public, arts festivals, or for the City during 2026 (and is not already reserved by another person, organization, or event).
To further these discussions with LCAD, the City Manager and the Community Services and Transit Director attempted to quantify the parking revenue received in 2025 for Lot 10 and for the LCR on-street parking spaces. (There was no paid parking at Act V during these offseason months, at least during weekdays.) The amount in question for Lot 10 and for the LCR on-street parking spaces is about $5,000 per year. Here, LCAD is requesting that the City charge $5,000 annually for the use of this temporary parking. While, in most cases, the City charges “full freight” for parking regardless for whether the lot would have been in use outside of the permitting process (i.e., City would ordinarily charge for use of Act V for offseason time), a reasonable alternative here is to charge an amount estimated to be the same revenue received from Lot 10 and LCR spaces in 2025. City staff proposes to implement any new rates that are legally established through the coastal development permit process starting in FY 2026/27. This item comes before the Council to allow the Council and community to fully understand the program and LCAD’s approach in seeking temporary parking permits during construction.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
We estimate that LCAD’s use of these lots and spaces will not have any direct effect on City parking funds, as LCAD is obligated to pay the same amount that Lot 10 and the adjacent parking spaces likely generated in 2025.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
2 of 207
ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL PROGRAM; AND UPDATE ON LAGUNA COLLEGE OF ART AND DESIGN’S APPLICATION TO RENT CERTAIN PARKING
LOTS AND SPACES AT CERTAIN TIMES ON A TEMPORARY BASIS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF LCAD’S INNOVATION CENTER
February 24, 2026
This action is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4) which exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. (14 CCR Section 15304(e).) Here, this action will allow people to prepurchase temporary parking placards to use certain City lots at the same time as members of the public and also will also make more parking available by renting out parking lots and spaces when those lots and spaces are not generally open to the public use. This action does not authorize permanent infrastructure and merely creates an administrative system to allow persons to coordinate use of the City’s parking lots and spaces. Therefore, this action falls within the minor alterations to land exemption. None of the exceptions to the use of the categorical exemptions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The Project will not result in a cumulative impact from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. Moreover, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the Project that would result in a reasonably possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the Project will not damage scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources. The Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Finally, the Project does not include any hazardous waste sites.
Thus, Class 4 exemption applies, and no further environmental review is required. Staff will cause a Notice of Exemption to be filed with the County of Orange County and State Clearing house within five (5) days of this action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution establishing City Parking Lot Rental Program (Pgs. 4-13)
2. Aerial designation of spaces at Lot 16 (Act V), Lot 10, and on-street parking along Laguna Canyon Road (Pgs. 14-15)
Submitted By: Dave Kiff Approved: .David A Kiff
Dave Kiff, City Manager Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Dave Kiff, City Manager Alexis Braun, Acting Director of Transit and Community Services
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
LCAD Officials
3 of 207
RESOLUTION NO 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
THE CITY PARKING LOT RENTAL PROGRAM; AND
FINDING THE ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15304
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, the City has the authority to enact laws and regulations which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, the City operates various parking lots open to the public throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City currently rents out certain parking lots on an ad hoc basis to various parties and community groups attending establishments within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a city-wide program for renting out parking lots and spaces on a temporary basis and the rules and regulations for such program; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby establishes the City Parking Lot Rental Program, where by the City Manager, or the City’s Manager’s Designee, is authorized to rent, on a temporary Attachment 1
4 4 of 207
-2- Reso. #26.XXX
and first come, first serve basis, certain parking lots operated by the City at certain times and on a certain basis, as specified in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. As part of the City Parking Lot Rental Program, the City Council also hereby authorizes the City Manager, or the City’s Manager’s Designee, to rent, on a temporary, first come first serve, and non-exclusive basis, certain on-street public parking space, as depicted in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, at certain times and on a certain basis, as determined by the City Manager or the City Manager’s designee.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby establishes the following rules and regulations for the City Parking Lot Rental Program:
A. Administrator.
a. The City Manager or their designee shall administer the City Parking Lot Rental Program.
b. The City Manager or their designee shall develop an application form and identify information necessary to evaluate and process the application.
B. Application.
a. An application for Temporary Parking Permit shall be submitted at least two weeks prior to the proposed use.
b. The application shall be accompanied by a non-refundable fee in the amount so designated in the City Council Master Fee Resolution to cover the processing of the application.
c. The Applicant is required to enter into an agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, setting forth Applicant’s obligations to indemnify and hold harmless the City from any claim or damage asserted by a third party 5 5 of 207
-3- Reso. #26.XXX
relating to the City Parking Lot Rental Program or temporary parking permit, and to maintain adequate forms and limits of insurance, at the determination of the Risk Manager in consultation with the City Attorney.
C. Rules and Regulations
a. Non-exclusive basis: The temporary parking permit issued on a non-exclusive basis shall be indicated by a City-issued or other City-recognized placard that can be displayed on a vehicle’s dashboard or rear-view mirror. b. Exclusive basis: The temporary parking permit issued on an exclusive basis shall be indicated by City-issued signs and ropes that can be displayed at the entrances of the City parking lot.
c. The City Manager, or the City Manager’s designee, may establish additional rules and regulations to implement the City Parking Lot Rental Program.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings with respect to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This action is exempt from the requirements of the CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4) which exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes.
Examples include but are not limited to minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. (14 CCR Section 15304(e).) Here, this action will allow people to prepurchase temporary parking placards to use certain City lots at the same time as members of the public and also will also make more parking available by renting out parking lots and spaces when those lots and spaces are not generally open to the public use. This action does not authorize permanent infrastructure and merely creates an 6 6 of 207
-4- Reso. #26.XXX
administrative system to allow persons to coordinate use of the City’s parking lots and spaces.
Therefore, this action falls within the minor alterations to land exemption.
None of the exceptions to the use of the categorical exemptions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The Project will not result in a cumulative impact from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. Moreover, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the Project that would result in a reasonably possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the Project will not damage scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources. The Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Finally, the Project does not include any hazardous waste sites. Thus, Class 4 exemption applies, and no further environmental review is required. The City Council directs staff to cause a Notice of Exemption to be filed with the County of Orange County and State Clearing house within five (5) days of adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 6. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 7. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.
SECTION 8. This Resolution shall not become effective unless and until a coastal development permit for the change in the intensity of the use of land for the Parking Lot Rental Program is both approved and effective.
7 7 of 207
-5- Reso. #26.XXX
ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on February 24, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
8 8 of 207
-6- Reso. #26.XXX
EXHIBIT A
(Parking Lot Rental Program)
Lot Address Hours Available to
Public
Parking
Spaces
Hours Available
for Temporary
Parking Permit
Basis Available
for Temporary
Parking Permit
1 234 Broadway Street
(the Broadway Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 26 N/A N/A
2 322 Forest Avenue
(the Peppertree Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 38 N/A N/A
3 243 Ocean Avenue
(Ocean Avenue West,
Lot B)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 24 N/A N/A
4 225 Ocean Avenue
(Ocean Avenue West,
Lot A)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 15 N/A N/A
5 348 Glenneyre Street
(the Mermaid Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 15 N/A N/A
6 501 Glenneyre Street
(the Glenneyre Street
Structure)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 215 N/A N/A
7 30801 Coast
Highway (the
Treasure Island
Surface Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 31 N/A N/A
8 30799 Coast
Highway (the
Treasure Island
Garage Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 39 N/A N/A
9 21540 Wesley Drive 5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 29 N/A N/A
9 9 of 207
-7- Reso. #26.XXX
(the Fred Lang Lot)
10 725 Laguna Canyon
Road (the Laguna
Canyon Road Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 65 5:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m.
Non-exclusive
5:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m.
Exclusive (as
available)
11 551 Forest Avenue
(the Forest/Laguna
Canyon Lot)
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 126 5:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m.
Non-exclusive
5:00 a.m. to 2:00
a.m.
Exclusive (as
available)
12 521 Forest Avenue
(the Lumberyard Lot)
Monday through
Thursday: 6 p.m. to 2
a.m.; Friday through
Sunday: 5:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m.
79 N/A N/A
13 380 3rd Street (the
Laguna Beach
Community and Susi
Q Center)
Monday through
Friday: 5:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.; Saturday
and Sunday: 5:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m.
74 Monday through
Friday: 5:00 p.m.
to 2:00 a.m.;
Saturday and
Sunday: 5:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Non-Exclusive
Saturday and
Sunday: 5:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m.\
Exclusive (as
available)
14 480 Mermaid Street
(the Hagan Place Lot)
Monday through
Friday: 5:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.; Saturday
and Sunday: 5:00 a.m.
to 2:00 a.m.
25 N/A N/A
15 362 Ocean Avenue
(the Transit Depot
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. 14 N/A N/A
10 10 of 207
-8- Reso. #26.XXX
Lot)
16 1900 Laguna Canyon
Road (the ACT V
Parking Lot)
Summer (June to
September): 5 a.m. to 2
a.m.
250 N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Non-Summer
(September to June):
Saturday: 5:00 a.m. to
2 a.m.; Sunday: 5:00
a.m. to 2 a.m.
Non-Summer:
Saturday: 5:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m.;
and Sunday: 5:00
a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
Non-Exclusive
Non-Summer:
Monday through
Friday: 5:00 a.m.
to 2 a.m.
Exclusive (as
available and
only as to up to
50 spaces)
17 Closed until June
2026
N/A N/A N/A
18 Closed until June
2026
N/A N/A N/A
19 31872 Coast
Highway (the
Mission Hospital Lot)
Friday: 5:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.;
Saturday: 5:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m.;
Sunday: 5:00 a.m. to
2:00 a.m.
50 spaces
N/A N/A
20 31681 Coast
Highway (the Sea
Cove Lot)
10 spaces
N/A N/A
21 303 Legion Street
(the Legion Lot)
10 spaces
N/A N/A
22 31131 Coast 258 N/A N/A
11 11 of 207
-9- Reso. #26.XXX
Highway (the Aliso
Beach Lot)
spaces
23 363 Glenneyre Street
(the Laguna Beach
Library Lot)
Monday through
Thursday: 7:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.; Friday and
Sunday: 5:00 p.m. to
2:00 a.m.; and Sunday:
5:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
30 spaces
N/A N/A
12 12 of 207
-10- Reso. #26.XXX
EXHIBIT B
(On- Street Parking Space Rental Depiction on Laguna Canyon Road) 13 13 of 207
Lot 10 (65 spaces – M-F)
LCR on-street Parking Spots (about 25 – M-F)
Non-exclusive use
Attachment 2
14 14 of 207
Lot 16 (Act V)
35 spaces – M-Sat
Use reserved for LCAD students and Faculty – General Location 15 15 of 207
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
APPEAL
A
SUBJECT: 31526 VALIDO ROAD: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657
FOR A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE,
ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to the March 10, 2026, City Council Meeting; and
2. Find that the action to continue the public hearing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Two appeals of the Design Review Board’s approval of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 at 31526 Valido Road were filed with the City Clerk on October 6, 2025, and October 8, 2025. To continue the public hearing on the appeals without re-sending public hearing notices, staff requests that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to a date certain. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time.
The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance. This item was previously continued from the November 18, 2025 meeting, and the January 13, 2026 meeting. Staff requests the City Council continue this public hearing to the March 10, 2026, City Council meeting to allow additional time to complete an evaluation of the site’s potential historic significance, including consideration of a new historic assessment prepared by ESA, which was commissioned by the applicant and submitted to the City on January 27, 2026. By March 10, 2026, staff expects to have a more definitive schedule from the City’s architectural historians regarding completion of their reviews.1
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1 The Applicant has consented to the continuances and has also agreed to waive rights under the five-hearing rule. 1 of 7
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 24-0658 AND CDP 24-0657 AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD February 24, 2026
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3), which is the commonsense exemption that the CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The action on the determination of the appeal at the continued public hearing will include compliance with CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Applicant Waiver of Five-Hearing Limit (Pg. 3)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Heather Steven, Senior Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
2 of 7
From: steve kawaratani
To: Viera, Anthony CD
Cc: Steven, Heather CD; Schneider, Matthew CD
Subject: Re: 31526 Valido Road
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2026 2:24:40 PM
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.]
Hi Anthony,
It’s always a pleasure to hear from you. On behalf of the applicant, we agree to waive the five hearing limit on this project.
Best,
Steve Kawaratani
949.290.0210
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 12, 2026, at 12:54 PM, Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> agrees to waive the five-hearing limit on this project.
Attachment 1
3 3 of 7
4 of 7
5 of 7
6 of 7
7 of 7
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
February 24, 2026
APPEAL
B
SUBJECT: 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1431 FOR A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE,
ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-0433 FOR THIS NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT
WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE AND AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, VARIANCE 25-0432 TO ENCROACH INTO A SIGNIFICANT MODIFIED
WATERCOURSE SETBACK AREA AND TO NOT PROVIDE A PUBLIC
PARKING SPACE IN THE DIAMOND/CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-2285 FOR RETAINING
WALL AND FIRE ACCESS LADDER WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-0431, Variance 25-0432, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285, and the California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-0433 FOR THIS
NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, INCLUDING AN ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, VARIANCE 25-0432 TO ENCROACH INTO A
SIGNIFICANT MODIFIED WATERCOURSE SETBACK AREA AND TO NOT PROVIDE A
PUBLIC PARKING SPACE IN THE DIAMOND/CRESTVIEW SPECIFIC PLAN AREA, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-2285 FOR RETAINING WALL AND FIRE
ACCESS LADDER WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)”, upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-0431, Coastal Development Permit 25-0433, Variance 25-0432, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-2285, and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
1 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
David Freeland, Architect (“Applicant”)1, for 2058 Crestview Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-0431 for a new single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, elevated decks, retaining walls, grading, landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-0433 for this non-exempt development within the coastal zone and an attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”), Variance (“VAR”) 25-0432 for encroachment into a significant modified watercourse setback area2 and to not provide a public parking space3, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 25-2285 for a 10-foot-high retaining wall and fire access ladder within the public right-of-way.
On May 9, 2024, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the project at the conceptual plan stage (the “Conceptual Project”). During the hearing, the Board evaluated the proposed design and received public testimony, which focused primarily on view equity, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy concerns. Following discussion, the Board directed the Applicant to explore alternative colors and materials to improve neighborhood compatibility and achieve a more rustic character, increase landscaping to address privacy impacts, and increase grading to better integrate the structure into the hillside and reduce its apparent mass. The Board also indicated that the requested variance to encroach into the significant modified watercourse setback was reasonable, given the altered condition of the watercourse and the absence of environmental resources. (The May 9, 2024 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 2 through 5, respectively.) On April 10, 2025, the Board held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the entitlement applications, consisting of DR 25-0431, CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, and REP 25-2285 (the “Original Project”). In the published staff report, staff summarized revisions made by the Applicant in response to prior Board direction, including the addition of landscaping along the south side of the structure to address privacy concerns associated with 2100 Crestview Drive, modifications to exterior colors and materials, and updated grading calculations demonstrating greater integration of the structure into the hillside. As indicated in the staff report, the Applicant requested an additional variance request to allow deviation from the Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan requirement to provide an on-street public parking space. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Original Project and voted 5–0 to continue the hearing to July 10, 2025, to allow the Applicant additional time to revise the project in response to Board direction and to engage further with neighboring property owners. The Board provided the following direction to the Applicant:
1. Shift the uppermost level toward the rear to help address view equity concerns;
2. Modify the driveway to accommodate two standard parking spaces outside of the public right-ofway;
3. Adjust the proposed exterior color to a more rustic tone;
4. Incorporate additional landscaping to enhance privacy; 1 The Project’s owner is Mike Czajkowski, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.50.030(D)(4).
3 Diamond/Crestview Specific Plan (“DCSP”) Section IV(J)(1). 2 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
5. Explore solutions regarding the neighboring wall encroaching into the public right-of-way, which currently protects the adjacent (southern) property’s emergency access stairs. (The April 10, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, and Transcript are attached as Attachments 6 through 9, respectively.) The Applicant subsequently requested additional continuances to September 11, 2025 and then to October 9, 2025. At the October 9, 2025 hearing, upon discovering that the application did not include a request for the required REP, the Board decided not to deliberate on the merits of the project and instead continued the item to December 11, 2025.
On November 18, 2025, the Applicant submitted revised plans to City staff with the following modifications (the “Revised Project”):
1. The setback between the garage and the street has been increased by 2 feet to better accommodate two cars parking on the driveway. One space in the driveway is 18 feet deep (i.e., a standard space).
The second space is about 16 feet deep (i.e., a compact space).7
2. The third (uppermost) level was shifted 3 feet toward the rear, resulting in a corresponding shift and slight enlargement of the second level, to address views over the building.
3. The exterior color was updated to Sage Green and additional limestone veneer was added to the garage face.
4. Vertical siding was removed in two areas on the front elevation and replaced with stucco to soften the structure’s box-like appearance.
5. Additional landscaping along the north and south-side property lines, including two Arbutus unedo (Strawberry trees), was included to address privacy concerns.
6. The structure was also further embedded into the hillside to reduce the appearance of mass.
7. A REP application was submitted, requesting the construction of a 10-foot-high retaining wall and the installation of a 10-foot-high wall mounted foldable metal ladder.
On December 11, 2025, the Board held a public hearing to consider the Revised Project and received public testimony expressing continued concerns related to view equity and neighborhood compatibility. The Board 7 Section IV(J)(1) of the DCSP states: “Upon development of a building site, one (1) on-street public parking space shall be provided. If the provision of on-street parking is found to be infeasible, an equivalent parking space shall be provided on-site.
Only upon exhaustion of all possible alternatives to provide a parking space either on-street or on-site and with approval of a variance, an in-lieu fee as established by City Council, shall be paid to fund the future construction of parking in the neighborhood.” Here, the Revised Project satisfies this requirement with the imposition of COA No. 21 in Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431, which requires the payment of a $23,000 in-lieu fee. The in-lieu fee was imposed because the Board found that it was infeasible for the Revised Project to provide a public parking space. The in-lieu fee is in addition to the two covered parking spaces that will be provided in the garage to satisfy the parking required for the single-family home. The ADU is exempt from the parking requirements due to its proximity to a public transit stop. The driveway parking spaces would provide additional, non-required off-street parking on the Applicant’s Property for the Applicant’s exclusive use. Although the second space in the driveway (fourth off-street space overall) is too shallow to meet the criteria for a standard parking space, it exceeds the minimum depth required for a compact parking space (15 feet), and as such would be usable by smaller vehicles without encroachment into the right-of-way. As indicated further below, the Revised Project as conditionally approved would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required spaces to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for standard residential spaces.
3 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
voted 4-0 (Chair Gibbs absent) to adopt Resolution 25-0431, approving the Revised Project and finding the Revised Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, subject to the standard conditions of approval and the following Board-imposed condition of approval (COA No. 32) (the “Board Approval”):
Condition No. 32: “At the Design Review Board meeting of December 11, 2025, the project was approved subject to the following conditions, which shall be incorporated into the final plans and implemented as part of the proposed development: the project program shall be shifted a minimum of two (2) feet toward the rear of the lot; the maximum height of the proposed structure shall be reduced and shall not exceed the 135-foot elevation mark; and, at the City’s discretion, a fall protection railing shall be installed along the exposed portions of the neighboring property’s fire access pathway at the front of the property to be located on the Applicant’s southerly retaining wall along the property line.”9
(The December 11, 2025 Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Transcript, and Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-0431 are attached as Attachments 10 through 14, respectively.) On January 2, 2025, Evgenii Krasko (the “Appellant”), the neighboring property owner of 785 Gainsborough Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 15). The Appellant contends that the Board failed to adequately protect view equity, citing six contentions. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearings; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the February 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 16).
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all DR, VAR, CDP, and REP decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in 9 Implementation of COA No. 32 would have the effect of increasing the depth of the non-required off-street parking spaces located on the Applicant’s Property within the driveway to meet the minimum depth for standard residential parking spaces (i.e., the two parking spaces will now both be greater than or equal to 18 feet deep). 4 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026
error or an abuse of discretion.11 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit, Variance, Revocable Encroachment Permit, and CEQA LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, variance, revocable encroachment permit, and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-0433, VAR 25-0432, REP 25-2285, and a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence.
There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented. 11 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 5 of 485
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-0431, VAR 25-0432, CDP 25-0433, AND REP 25-2285 AT 2058 CRESTVIEW DRIVE
February 24, 2026