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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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)
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