Historic and Architectural Preservation Board selects top-ranked nominee for 2025 Legacy Award
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Sign Up Free
Summary
The board voted unanimously Aug. 28 to name the top-ranked nominee — listed in the staff memo as Earl Midland — as the 2025 Legacy Award recipient and directed staff to prepare a certificate and schedule a presentation at a City Council meeting.
The Historic and Architectural Preservation Board voted Aug. 28 to award its 2025 Legacy Award to the top-ranked nominee identified in the clerk’s memo as Earl Midland. The motion passed on a roll-call vote after a second; board members present voted unanimously in favor.
Board members said the award follows the combined-board process and the new legacy award guidelines adopted earlier this year. Harry (historical resources staff) told the board the clerk’s memo showed a first-place ranking for Earl Midland and a tie for second between Ralph Twitchell and the Venice Area Historical Society, and staff asked the board to confirm how many recipients to select.
Board members discussed precedent and options: the award has in prior years recognized an individual and an organization; the board may choose one recipient, multiple recipients, or none. A motion to nominate the top-ranked nominee carried. Chair Beebe said after the vote, “We have a winner. We have a winner.” Staff said it will prepare the legacy award certificate and coordinate a presentation at an upcoming City Council meeting.
During discussion the board also asked staff to develop a clearer timeline and outreach plan for future award cycles. Staff summarized the practical schedule they plan to use going forward: solicit nominations at the end of the calendar year, open public nominations in January through March, compile and present a candidate list for board review in March, and aim for a May presentation (the board may adjust timing). Members also discussed whether winners — especially organizations — should be eligible for repeat awards on a fixed timetable; several expressed support for a multi‑year gap between repeat awards (members suggested three years as a starting point) and asked staff to include recommendations on frequency and any limits in the timeline returned to the board.
The board did not change the legacy award guidelines at the meeting; staff will return with a proposed timeline and recommended guideline language for the board to consider.