C I T Y O F L A G U N A B E A C H
Facilities Master Plan Final Report
M A Y 5 , 2 0 2 6
Attachment 1
5 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Executive Summary 1
1. Introduction 2
2. Planning Process Review 2
3. Community Engagement Summary 3
4. Facility Condition Assessment Summary 4
5. Space Needs & Operational Programming 5
6. Conceptual Planning Summary 6
7. Strategic Prioritization Framework 7
8. Cost Summary 9
9. Implementation Strategy & Next Steps 10
Appendix 1 - Community Outreach Summary Report
Appendix 2 - Full Facility Condition Assessments
Appendix 3 - Stakeholder Space Questionnaires
Appendix 4 - Space Programs
Appendix 5 - Conceptual Site Plans & Diagrams
Appendix 6 - Cost Estimates
Appendix 7 - Laguna Beach City Staff Report
6 7
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y
current and future needs of its civic facilities. This plan evaluates the physical conditions, functional performance, and longterm requirements of 26 City-owned and leased sites, totaling over 318,000 square feet. The plan is the result of a highly collaborative process including technical analysis, stakeholder outreach, and strategic prioritization. is projected to invest an estimated $314M in facility maintenance alone, addressing safety, accessibility, and operational support high-quality services.
The FMP recommends a comprehensive framework for addressing both deferred and preventative maintenance, feasible—some are immediately actionable, while others are aspirational and may exceed current funding capabilities. As a result, the FMP includes a pragmatic and phased implementation strategy to balance priorities, resources, and longassets. community resilience for decades to come.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 8 City of Laguna Beach Leadership
• City Council Members
• City Council Facilities Master Plan Ad-Hoc Committee
•
•Community Stakeholders
• Residents and local businesses
• Community and advocacy groups
• Festival of Arts and Laguna Playhouse representatives • Village Entrance representatives
Project Team
•
•
•
•
•
• Beacon Economics & TRI Commercial Real Estate
Your engagement, feedback, and shared commitment
to the future of Laguna Beach’s civic infrastructure
were critical to shaping this plan.
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S
1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N
utilize its facility portfolio. The City Council established service delivery, community enrichment, and operational sustainability. The goal is to align physical spaces with the City's evolving needs and the expectations of its residents, workforce, and partners.
Housing Element, and adopted Council priorities, ensuring facility investments support broader community and
sustainability, accessibility, and long-term service delivery excellence.
This plan provides a long-term strategic vision grounded in practical data, including facility condition assessments, modeling. It helps the City take a proactive approach
to facility investment—balancing community priorities,
only outlines a clear course for near-term improvements but also builds a framework to accommodate long-range
planning, partnerships, and resilience in the face of future growth and change.
2 . P L A N N I N G P R O C E S S O V E R V I E W
The process began in May 2024 and was designed to
be methodical, inclusive, and data-driven, ensuring that • This foundational phase established how the City would engage internal stakeholders and the public
throughout the project. A robust outreach plan
guided pop-up events, stakeholder interviews, and
town halls. The goal was to ensure transparency,
gather a diversity of perspectives, and build public
trust. • Bureau Veritas performed comprehensive site
assessments on all City-owned and leased facilities.
These evaluations resulted in Facility Condition
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 2 9 preventative maintenance, and code compliance
needs, helping to prioritize where immediate
positioning for the future. • Analysis
demands, and operational trends. Space programs
were developed for each department based on
data collection, interviews, utilization studies,
comparing future needs to existing conditions. • Alternative Service Locations Our design partner, LPA Design Studios, developed
conceptual block diagrams and site studies to
demonstrate how evolving space needs could
be accommodated across various City-owned
properties. These studies considered full site buildout potential, explored innovative solutions such as subterranean development, and, in some cases,
evaluated the feasibility of incorporating revenuegenerating uses—such as residential components—to • Implementation Plan
Our estimating partner, HLCM, provided order-ofmagnitude cost estimates for all proposed projects, developed a phased, prioritized implementation plan
aligned with community values and funding realities.
Throughout each phase of the process, the project team
maintained a disciplined and transparent coordination
structure. This included bi-weekly working sessions with Committee, and formal presentations during Council Study Sessions. These consistent touchpoints ensured leadership alignment, facilitated timely decision-making, and allowed the team to remain responsive to evolving priorities and community feedback. In parallel, the team also conducted a number of public outreach events to engage the broader section.
3 . C O M M U N I T Y E N G A G E M E N T S U M M A R Y Robust community engagement was a cornerstone of the
Facilities Master Plan process, ensuring that the voices of Laguna Beach residents, community leaders, and
stakeholders directly informed the vision and priorities strategically designed to engage a diverse cross-section of the community through a blend of traditional and
contemporary methods, fostering transparency, inclusion, and public trust.
Throughout the planning process, the City adapted and
Early feedback prompted the team to expand outreach
touchpoints, revisit program assumptions, and emphasize community-serving facilities such as the library, recreation, and public safety facilities. These “course corrections” priorities.
Over a 12-month period, the project team executed over
140 community and stakeholder engagement touchpoints,
including
• with City leadership, department heads, cultural
institutions, and partner agencies
•
•
feedback
• on the City website, regularly updated FAQs, a digital comment form, and a summary of engagement
outcomes
• multiple platforms to increase awareness and direct
users to participate in events and surveys
quantitative, with participants contributing insights
on facility usage, unmet needs, values, and future
opportunities.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 3 10 Community Input Themes
The input received was wide-ranging and highly valuable.
The following themes emerged consistently across the • and marine safety facilities to improve operational accessibility standards. • with enhancements to infrastructure, technology, and parking
• amenities such as a community pool, as well as
upgrades to the CRC, Susi Q, and Lang Park
• and a Community Arts Center within Festival Grounds
• design into future projects
• sector partners to expand service capacity
This feedback directly shaped space programming and
not only with operational needs but also with community aspirations and long-term values.
4 . F A C I L I T Y C O N D I T I O N A S S E S S M E N T
S U M M A R Y
Bureau Veritas performed detailed condition evaluations of all 26 City-owned and leased facilities, applying a
consistent methodology based on industry standards.
The assessments considered structural integrity, code
compliance, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems
resiliency. Each facility received a Facility Condition Index replacement costs, allowing the City to understand relative investment needs across the portfolio.
Inspections included visual walk-throughs, documentation needs for each site. This data served as a critical baseline for determining which facilities are in greatest need of reinvestment, which can be maintained as-is, and which
may require full replacement.
working toward compliance with modern accessibility
standards
F A C I L I T I E S C O N D I T I O N A S S E S S M E N T S U M M A R Y Facility Groupings # of
Facilities Average Condition 20-Year
Maint. Need
Public Safety 6 Good $54M
Civic & Admin 3 Fair-Good $65M
Library 1 Fair Envelope, HVAC, Interior Finishes $12M
Parks & Recreation 3 Good-Excellent HVAC, Fire Protection, Roof $86M City-Owned Leased Facilities 3 Fair-Good Electrical, HVAC, Plumbing, ADA, Kitchen Equip. $93M Parking Lots 3 Good Routine Maintenance, Fire System $4M T O T A L 19 Good $314M
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 4 11 5 . S P A C E N E E D S A N D O P E R A T I O N A L
P R O G R A M M I N G
The space needs analysis served as the critical bridge
between current operations and future facility requirements. owned and leased spaces, ensuring a full understanding
of existing utilization, constraints, and opportunities.
The project team conducted detailed departmental
interviews with every operating unit in the City, spanning administrative, public safety, public works, community
services, and cultural functions, to document how spaces improvements could enhance service delivery.
In parallel, community members and stakeholder
representatives were engaged to validate functional needs and desired community amenities, particularly within
recreation, cultural, and civic gathering spaces. This input operational perspectives but also public expectations and programmatic value to the community.
Building upon this data, the team utilized best in class workplace and civic facility design standards to project appropriate space allocations. This included applying
operations, and support areas, as well as industry
benchmarks for specialized municipal spaces such as
recreation and community meeting spaces. These standards were informed by the latest research and applied experience from similar sized California municipalities, ensuring that comparable within the broader public sector.
To ensure the projections were contextually appropriate, the team compared the resulting space programs against
peer municipal facilities that have recently completed new construction or major renovations such as the cities of Newport Beach, Huntington Beach, and Manhattan Beach.
align with current planning norms while accounting
conditions.
It is important to note that the City could elect to take a more aggressive approach in reducing its projected facility environments. However, the recommended space programs
fall on the leaner end of accepted standards, recognizing parking and access constraints. The projections therefore adequately supporting current and future service levels without exceeding reasonable facility size expectations. total shortfall of more than
62,000 square feet, driven by outdated, undersized, and fragmented buildings that present challenges in meeting today's service delivery standards. Departments operating in temporary or repurposed spaces face limitations in
technology, collaboration, public access, and future growth. • Police Department
dedicated space for training, evidence processing,
secure holding, and expansion. Recommended future
• Fire Department: Multiple stations are undersized and do not meet modern size requirements for apparatus
gender-inclusive accommodations, or seismic standards.
• Marine Safety: The current facilities are severely
constrained, lacking the infrastructure and space
demands. Since the City has assumed responsibility
for the previously County-managed beaches in South
accommodations, and rapid-response capabilities.
Upgraded facilities would enhance public safety,
equitable support for marine personnel.
• City Hall & Administrative Services: Administrative
functions are spread across multiple buildings, creating at a central civic campus would improve service
• Parks & Recreation: Some spaces are underutilized
or duplicative. Opportunities exist to reallocate and
The table below, originally presented in the June 24, 2025, Council Study Session, summarizes existing versus future space needs by department.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 5 12 6 . C O N C E P T U A L P L A N N I N G S U M M A R Y LPA Design Studios translated the validated space needs into a series of high-level conceptual site plans designed real estate portfolio. These conceptual diagrams served not as architectural designs but as feasibility studies to examine physical capacity, co-location opportunities, and often highly constrained properties.
between functionality, cost, community support, and
design solution may not align with available funding or site and stakeholder engagement in implementation. Some of
• Lot Size, Shape, and Topography: Many civic
sites in Laguna Beach are limited by steep slopes,
irregular boundaries, and adjacency to residential or
environmentally sensitive areas.
• Zoning, Easements, and Coastal Regulations: Proposed
improvements were informed by underlying land use
designations, development caps, and coastal permitting
requirements.
• Access and Circulation: Vehicle access, emergency
ensure safe and intuitive site operations.
• Phasing and Construction Logistics: Temporary
relocation needs were considered to minimize service
disruption during potential construction.
Design strategies varied depending on the function, site constraints, and projected growth of each department. Key • Vertical and Subterranean Expansion:
multistory civic structures and below-grade facilities.
These strategies are particularly relevant at Fire Station 1, the Police Department site, and Lang Park.
• Revenue-Generating Land Uses: In select locations,
such as the Festival Grounds or surplus sites, concepts explored the potential for integrating residential or
commercial components to support project funding and
address housing or artist opportunities.
• Community-Integrated Design: Public space elements—
including plazas, art integration, and outdoor
programming—were considered for key civic locations
neighborhood engagement.
F A C I L I T I E S S P A C E N E E D S S U M M A R Y
Facilities Current SF Ideal SF Surplus/
Shortfall Notes
Police Department 16,953 34,310 -17,357
Fire Department 17,339 28,066 -10,728 Support growing crews & modern apparatus needs Marine Safety 5,978 8,328 -2,350
Library 11,269 15,500 -4,231 Future-ready environment
Parks & Recreation 69,468 53,633 15,835 Shift in CRC use strategy 42,908 59,325 -16,417 Align w/operational needs & evolving municipal functions 154,505 181,649 -27,144 Rehearsal, admin, set storage, & community art facilities Parking Lots N/A N/A N/A
T O T A L 318,420 380,811 -62,392
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 6 13 Parking Constraints and Considerations
conceptual planning process was the issue of parking.
urban fabric characterized by narrow streets, limited parcel depths, and overlapping demands from residents, visitors, and City operations. In many cases, existing sites already lack adequate parking to support their current functions— Several conceptual plans, while functionally compelling, reduce existing surface parking or intensify building
parking supply if not mitigated. The impact is particularly • Police Department:
parking areas and vehicle egress.
• Lang Park / CRC: Shared-use programming and
recreation demands will increase peak parking needs.
• Festival Grounds: Introducing cultural and community
programming here without structured parking would
limit event feasibility.
To address these constraints, the planning team considered a range of parking mitigation strategies, including
• Integration of structured or underground parking where feasible
•
infrastructure to reduce vehicle dependence
•
• Alignment with broader citywide mobility strategies,
including downtown parking plans and transit
improvements
The parking challenge reinforces the need to consider
mobility, land use, and tourism management frameworks. It also underscores the importance of implementing holistic, district-based planning where civic investment can trigger broader circulation and infrastructure improvements.
These conceptual plans, in combination with the facility condition assessments and space programs, formed the
analytical backbone of the implementation framework
outlined in the next section.
7 . S T R A T E G I C P R I O R I T I Z A T I O N
F R A M E W O R K
and impact-oriented investment, this Facilities Master Plan introduces a Strategic Prioritization Framework that enables the City to phase improvements in a logical, achievable manner.
This framework categorizes facilities into three
• Facility condition and deferred maintenance backlog
• Life-safety and code compliance issues
•
• Community priorities and visibility
• Site readiness and project feasibility
• Potential for partnership or co-location
a roadmap for near-term action and long-term
transformation.
Group 1: Foundational Public Safety, Core Services
& Immediate Community Benefits
These projects represent the highest-priority investments that address urgent safety concerns, deliver tangible
improvements to public-facing services, and support
operational readiness. They also include lower-cost, highaccessibility compliance.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 7 14 15
•
infrastructure improvements supporting local arts and
citywide cultural tourism. • programmatic updates to preserve this iconic arts venue and expand year-round usage. •
for reclaiming coastal amenities to increase public
access, leisure opportunities, and historical connection Estimated Cost Range: $223M – $318M
Strategic Value: Transformational civic legacy, enhanced arts and cultural identity, and bold reimagining of Laguna This tiered implementation strategy allows the City to
• Start with achievable, visible wins in Group 1 while
setting up funding mechanisms for additional groups. • Group 2. • Strategically prepare for legacy investments in Group 3.
The framework ensures that planning and capital delivery support, and long-term civic priorities.
8 . C O S T S U M M A R Y
The Facilities Master Plan presents a wide range of capital construction escalation over time. To support informed
projects were evaluated with high-level cost estimates
prepared by HLCM, a professional cost-estimating
consultant with experience in municipal facilities.
Methodology
Each facility or program concept was assigned a cost range based on
• Proposed building program square footage
•
• Construction type and phasing assumptions
• Applicable prevailing wage requirements
• Site premiums related to coastal conditions, tight site / access limitations, or grading
•
• Soft costs including design, permits, project
management, and FF&E.
These cost ranges are presented in 2025 dollars and are intended for planning purposes only. They represent orderof-magnitude estimates future design, entitlement, and permitting processes,
ensuring escalation is tied to appropriate construction start and duration periods.
Understanding the Financial Landscape
Implementing the Facilities Master Plan will require strategic availability, and community priorities. The table below considerations as it moves toward implementation. • Several transformative build-outs, allowing the City to scale
projects based on funding and need.
• Coastal Premiums and Constraints:
topography, site access, and coastal permitting process introduce unique cost pressures. Temporary relocation,
shoring, subterranean construction, and phased
implementation may be required at several sites,
increasing cost and complexity.
S U M M A R Y O F E S T I M A T E D R A N G E S
Facility Group E S T . C O S T R A N G E
Police Department $27M - $71M
$43M - $57M
Marine Safety Facilities $3M - $10M
Library Modernization $7M - $22M
$25M - $88M
$38M - $85M
Leased Facilities $43M - $107M
T O T A L ( A L L P R O J E C T S ) $186M - $440M
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 9 16 • Public-Private Partnerships (P3s): For some sites— such as the CRC with housing or the Village Entrance
parking/housing concept—there may be opportunities
partnerships. These opportunities are not yet factored
into the total cost but should be actively explored
during implementation.
• Sustainability and Future Resilience: Projects may
and other green building strategies that could yield
long-term savings or qualify for grant funding. Upfront costs may be higher, but total lifecycle value should be considered.
• Need for Long-Term Capital Planning: The total cost
The City will need to maintain a long-range capital
phase, and fund investments strategically.
• Grant and Bond Opportunities: Several projects—
especially those related to public safety, ADA
compliance, climate resilience, and cultural facilities— may be eligible for local, state, or federal funding
sources. Early pursuit of these opportunities will be
essential for implementation
9 . I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S T R A T E G Y &
N E X T S T E P S
It is important to remember that a Facilities Master
Plan serves as a comprehensive guide for maintaining
and improving city-owned buildings and infrastructure.
It evaluates the condition and functionality of existing facilities, assesses how well they support the services expansion, or relocation based on projected growth and
community needs. The plan presents conceptual ideas for how facilities could evolve, considering site capacity and future demand.
F I N A N C I A L L A N D S C A P E S U M M A R Y
Theme Description
Flexibility
Projects have multiple potential scopes—from minor upgrades to full redevelopment—allowing for scaling based on available funding and evolving needs.
Coastal Premiums and Constraints
cost estimates.
Sustainability and Future Resilience upfront costs but enhance lifecycle value and grant eligibility.
Need for Long-Term Capital Planning The scale of the plan requires sustained, multi-decade capital investment planning.
A living CIP should track project status and funding over time.
Grant and Bond Opportunities High-potential areas include public safety, ADA upgrades, climate resilience, and arts. Early action on federal, state, and philanthropic funding is key.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 1 0 17 Therefore, the Facilities Master Plan is not just aspirational, it provides a practical roadmap for delivering essential public infrastructure improvements over the next 10 to 20 years.
Given the scale and complexity of the recommended
investments, successful implementation will require a
the City can begin turning this plan into action.
Phased Approach to Project Delivery
Implementation is structured into three time-based phases, Short-Term (Years 1–3): Setting the Foundation
• Adopt and Socialize the Plan: Formal Council adoption followed by broad community communication and
engagement to maintain transparency and public trust.
• Community Information Campaign: Develop a
comprehensive outreach strategy to communicate plan
• Pre-Development Activities for Group 1 Projects:
Conduct feasibility studies and environmental
phasing plans.
• Operational Continuity: Begin early planning for
temporary facility needs to support uninterrupted
operations during construction.
• Funding Preparation:
programs, climate/safety-related infrastructure
Identify development partners for P3 opportunities
where applicable.
Mid-Term (Years 4–7): Design and Delivery
• Complete Design and Entitlements for Group 1 and
select Group 2 projects.
• Begin Construction:
Phase construction to maintain city services and
reduce disruption.
Leverage construction management best practices
to ensure transparency, cost control, and risk
mitigation.
• Begin Partnership Execution:
Finalize agreements for shared facilities, ground
leases, or co-development.
• Integrate Green Building Goals:
readiness, and net-zero building targets where
feasible.
Long-Term (Years 8–20): Full System Transformation
• Reassess and Update FMP Every 5–7 Years:
Evaluate progress against original goals.
community input and emerging needs.
• Deliver Group 2 and 3 Projects:
Cultural facilities, large-scale redevelopments, and
Consider master developer solicitation for surplus
lands or mixed-use concepts.
• Align with Broader Regional Goals:
Integrate with climate adaptation plans,
transportation upgrades, and state-mandated
housing initiatives.
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 1 1 18 K E Y R I S K & M I T I G A T I O N S T R A T E G I E S Risk Mitigation Approach
Construction escalation Early planning, cost indexing, and phased bidding strategies Operational disruption Advanced decanting and phased relocation planning Regulatory & permitting delays Proactive agency engagement, CEQA streamlining, and use of on-call Community push back Ongoing outreach, co-design workshops, and transparency in decision-making Clear governance, project management tools, and external PM/CM support Funding and Financing Considerations
Laguna Beach will need a diverse and strategic funding
approach to support long-term implementation. Potential sources include
• General Fund and Reserves
• Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Allocations
• Grants and Federal Funding:
FEMA, CDBG, CalOES, AB 178 funding, Prop 68
• Voter-Approved Bond Measures: GO Bonds for major
public safety and civic improvements • or Lease Revenue Bonds
• Philanthropic Contributions for library, arts, and cultural investments
• Public-Private Partnerships (P3) and co-development
revenue
• Developer Impact Fees or enhanced community
Governance and Oversight
• Internal Oversight Committee:
• FMP Implementation Working Group: Crossdepartmental team with external advisors • Regular Public Reporting: Annual dashboard updates on cost, schedule, and progress
• Transparent Procurement: Design-Build or Progressive
Design-Build methods should include clear selection
and value metrics.
F I N A L T H O U G H T S
The Facilities Master Plan is a living document—a
blueprint. By taking a thoughtful, scalable, and adaptive approach, the City of Laguna Beach can modernize its
exceptional public service, and prepares for the future.
A P P E N D I C E S
1. Community Outreach Summary Report
2. 3.
4. 5.
6. Cost Estimates by HLCM
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y G R I F F I N S T R U C T U R E S 1 2 19