The project before the commission included replacing doors and windows, adding new exterior materials, reducing eaves overhangs, revamping the roofing, and improving landscaping and lighting on the two-story commercial building. Staff recommended conditional approval and concluded that the measure is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Why it matters: The property contains extensive, irregular “crazy quilt” masonry that multiple commissioners, council members and dozens of residents have described as a defining neighborhood feature. The council previously referred the project to the commission with instructions to “maximise the preservation of the existing brick elements”. The Commission's permit conditions are intended to balance this direction with the applicant's goal of converting the building for further commercial use.
Planning staff presented the project process and explained the local council's remand. Assistant Planner Anthony (presenting on behalf of Assistant Planner Jessica Mendoza) summarized previous findings from the City's Historical Advisor and City Council leadership and said staff believe the latest plans “maximize the extent of this feature on all facades of the building, including the retention of the chimney.” He also informed the Commission that the draft resolution provides for a reconstruction/photo documentation requirement: “Condition No. 16 in your draft resolution establishes the requirement for a reconstruction plan and comprehensive photographic documentation to govern the replacement of the existing Crazy Quilt stone elements where they are to be removed and replaced.”
Residents and neighborhood groups opposed much of the proposed design. Anne Kane, speaking for Village Laguna, urged the commission to reject the application, saying the proposal “does not fit its style or the distinctive stonework of Laguna Beach” and urged the commission to “require that compatibility with the neighborhood be maintained.” Several other speakers, including heritage board members and neighbors, urged the commission to retain more of the building's existing details, asked for samples of the proposed windows and said the metal standing-seam roof and rear glass railing felt “too contemporary.”
The applicant's team said it had revised materials and colors since the last hearing to respond to guidance from the council and commission. The architect, on behalf of the owner, described which masonry should be “protected in place” and which should be removed and reinstalled after sealing and repair. Regarding efforts to reuse materials, staff read a mason's assessment provided by the applicant: “Everything that is here we can source to restore it exactly as it was,” the mason wrote, estimating roughly: “50 to 70% of Crazy Quilts' existing materials…can be carefully recovered and reused.”
The Commission's discussion focused on three recurring concerns: (1) how the Council's direction to “maximize retention” should be interpreted, (2) the extent of the proposed removal and reinstallation of brick to allow for waterproofing and new openings, and (3) the visual impact of certain modern materials (standing seam roofing, glass railings and simplified window grilles). Commissioner Whiting questioned the meaning of “preserve” and asked: “Preserve essentially means maintaining what exists. In other words, don't touch it” and questioned whether the applicant's approach (remove, document, repair and reinstall in kind if necessary) was consistent with Council's intent. Staff responded that the council motion specifically directed the commission to “maximize preservation of the existing brick elements” and that maximizing preservation may include documented replacements in kind when necessary to address water leaks and structural issues.
To address neighborhood concerns, the commission attached conditions to which the applicant has agreed or which staff will enforce administratively. Key conditions recorded in the minutes and incorporated into the application include: that the post adjacent to the corner building entrance must remain in place; Submit a revised color and material chart for staff approval; Using either a darker taupe cobblestone in a brick module or a brick paver compatible with the predominant shade of Crazy Quilt brick (final decision to be reviewed by staff); Replacing the proposed alley-side glass guardrail with a wooden slatted guardrail; and the requirement that window replacements use a split light pattern (muntin pattern) that matches the existing grid pattern.
Staff also emphasized that City inspections and the remediation plan/photographic documentation (Condition 16) must be approved by staff before the City issues a final construction certificate. As staff summarized earlier in the hearing: “There will be periodic inspections throughout the construction process…the city would not issue a construction certificate unless it is actually in-kind.”
The Commission's vote was followed by a motion to approve the project, subject to the conditions read out in the minutes. The roll call for the final motion was: Commissioner Sadler – yes; Commissioner Whiting – yes; Commissioner Dubin – no; Chairman Kellenberg – yes. Chairman Pro Tem Goldman signed out at the start of the meeting and was not listed on the last roll call.
Final Note: The Commission's conditional approval concludes a multi-year review that included the applicant's previous continuations, a historical assessment by the City's consultant, a denial by the Planning Commission in 2024, and an appeal to the City Council, which referred the project back to the Commission. The approval includes personnel verification steps and periodic inspections; The project will proceed with planning permission and construction and remains subject to the City's enforcement of the reconstruction plan and photo documentation conditions.
Voices at a glance:
– Consent Calendar (Procedural): Adopted unanimously (Commissioners Sadler, Whiting, Dubin, Chairman Pro Tem Goldman, Chairman Kellenberg – all “yes” on the consent list at the start of the meeting).
– Design Review 23-1480 (1110 Glenary Street): approved (yes – Sadler, Whiting, Kellenberg; no – Dubin; Goldman was not listed in the last call for names).