Laguna Beach staff recommend clean‑up of local historic register; council approves outreach and follow‑up reviews

A consultant team working for the city told the Laguna Beach City Council that gaps in the local historic register stem largely from changes in rules and missing paperwork, and recommended a mix of retention, reconsideration and removal for 54 properties listed without preservation agreements.

ASM affiliates and city planning staff said the evaluation (Task 1 of a two‑part project) classified properties into: 32 that should remain designated, seven that remain only if owners sign preservation agreements, 15 that need reinspection or further review, and six that staff recommend removing because they have been demolished or lost integrity. Staff said they found one previously missing preservation agreement, bringing the total on record to 32.

The city manager and ASM presenters outlined next steps: staff will send letters to property owners, pursue administrative delisting where appropriate, bring a subset of cases to the Heritage Committee, and finish a second task (developing CEQA‑compliant thresholds and a permit review framework) in spring 2026. Council asked staff to begin outreach immediately and directed staff to consider whether to fund roughly $9,000 for follow‑up evaluations or to ask property owners to pay that cost.

Public commenters urged transparency and stronger monitoring of Mills Act contracts. Several residents said the council’s pause on accepting new Mills Act applications had left recent applicants and homeowners who relied on the program in limbo. Planning staff and the city attorney explained that the Mills Act itself is a state tax incentive, that local preservation agreements and ongoing monitoring are distinct steps, and that the assessor applies a Prop. 13‑style calculation if a Mills Act contract is terminated.

Council approved the staff recommendations to receive and file the ASM report and directed staff to begin owner outreach, initiate administrative delisting steps where warranted, and return with the draft permit‑review framework and any recommended funding for follow‑up work. The motion passed unanimously.