RECEIVED
JAN 26 2026
POSITION STATEMENT City Clerk's Office
City of Laguna Beach, CA
Item #11 1/27/2026 City Council Meeting Agenda
FORMATION OF CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE REFARDING LONG TREM USE OF PROPERTIES AT/AROUND 20652 LAGUNA CANUPN ROAD (FOOD PANTRY, DOGPARK, PMMC TEMP FACILITY, ASL
1. That the City Council for an Ad Hoc Committee to engage with the community stakeholders regarding the long term and collective use of the operations and properties located at 20652 Laguna Canyon Road;
2. Appoint Mayor Orgill and Mayor Pro Tem Jones to serve on the Committee;
3. Sunset the Ad Hoc Committee upon submission of its recommendation to the City Council;
4. Determine that the recommended action is not a "project" under California Enviornmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidlines section 15601(b)(3).
Statement #1
PMMC PERMANENT USE PERMIT:
I want to begin by emphasizing that I support the PMMC and the good work they do for wildlife and education. This is not about opposing the organization- its about protecting the City from avoidable legal and financial risk and preserving Open Space that is bound by Grant restrictions found in the plain language of the governing documents.
The Dogpark was purchased by the City from GTE using $68,000 from its Open Space Fund, $200,000 from a California Transportation Commission Grant also known as EEM ( Enviornmental Enhancement and Mitigation), and $57,000 from a State Department of Parks and Recreation Grant, and is designated Open Space. That means it must remain open and recreational, and for use for the Public Good.
What the PMMC seeks is a Permanent Use Permit that permits exclusive-use for a single organization on Open Space Public Use Land.
Why does that matter? Because the restrictions expressed in the governing documents exposes the City to the following consequences for violating them:
1. Possible repayment of Grant funds
2. Compliance Audits
3. Loss of eligibilty for future State and Federal Grants Evidence of these risks can be found on page 4, Article VI of the EEM Grant Applicant-State Agreement which states in part "..if the property is not managed and maintained consistent with the Application, Applicant ...at the discretion of the State, shall reimburse State an amount at least equal to the amount of the State's funding participation in the Project or the Pro Rata fair market value of the property, including improvments, whichever is higher...".
Public records indicate at least one prior City administration did in fact find the financial and legal risks posed by these Grant restirctions on the property prohibitive and advised against a previous proposed Public alternative use for the Dogpark.
As Open Space becomes more scarce, we need to defend it, not chip away at it. Converting a portion of the Dogpark Open Space into a permanent exclusive-use facility for a single organization undermines the original purpose of the land's designation.
We are so fortunate on the West Coast to have a healthy self sustaining seal population of about 400,000 animals-that are neither endangered or threatened, and which makes it difficult to justify the possible legal and financial risk involved in approving the Permanent Use permit the PMMC seeks.
The TUP (expired ?) the field hospital now operates under SUBSTANTIALLY changed and impacted the Dogpark Open Space - earth was displaced for trenching to accomodate electrical, water and sewer lines, and structural footings, trees were removed, cement foundations were poured, trailers were moved onto the property, and double fencing with soil berms at the base were erected, displacing and destroying/interupting natural drainage and soil, plant and wildlife habitat, and displacing recreational users. Anyone of these constitutes a POSSIBLE PHYSICAL ENVIORNMENTAL EFFECT, which, if approved, the Permanent Use Permit will continue. California Courts have repeatedly upheld CEQA standards require at least INITIAL STUDY for Open Space - especially when involving land-use change or New Structures, when "if any reasonable argument exists that an action may cause enviornmental change". Courts treat impacts to designated Open Space very seriously, especially regarding RECREATION DISPLACEMENT, HABITAT ALTERATION, VISUAL CHARACTER, and LAND USE AND ZONING CONSISTENCY.
The threshold is low and COMMUNITY TESTIMONY can qualify as Substantial Evidence.
Once you allow one permanent encroachment into State/Federal protected Open Space, you create a Precedent. Other groups will point to this decision and ask for similar treatment. At that point, defending Open Space becomes much more difficult.
Across California, we've seen how quickly these issues can escalate. Cities rarely win when State and Federal Grant conditions are challenged, and the taxpayers lose twice - once in legal fees and again in repayment.
There are workable alteratives. PMMC's needs can be met in areas that are zoned and intended for permanent structures, or through temporary non-exclusive solutions that do not violate Grant conditions.
We can support PMMC's mission without exposing the City to State/Federal compliance issues, Grant repayment risk, or harmful land-use precedent.
I respectfully urge you to deny the PMMC Permanent Use Permit and protect both the DogPark Open Space and the City's financial interests.
Statement #2 (Item 11(4)
CITY RECOMENDATION THAT AD HOC COMMITTEE IS NOT A "Project" UNDER CEQA Section 15061(b)(3):
When the City considers a permit, negotiation, or alternative-site solution, an Ad Hoc committee with COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION provides several strategic benefits. Land-use decisions are highly sensitive and bringing in the community voices avoids perceptions of "closed door" agreements.
Transperancy reduces conflict, misinformaion, and potential challenges later. Community members often understand how the space is used daily, safety considerations, park capacity, access and parking patterns, and enviornmental sensitivities that City staff, consultants, and agency partners may not fully grasp.
The committee should include at mminimum: (1) City Staff, (2) PMMC representatives, and (3) community members who use the Dogpark or live adjacent to it. Public representation is critical for legitimacy, data gathering, and policy integrity.
With Community oversight there's a reduced risk that Grant Restrictions get overlooked, State and/or Federal compliance risks get ignored, and decisions are made without assessing long-term consequences. It further aligns with good governance practices used by many California cities when dealing with restricted use parcels. Community input also creates a constructive middle ground that supports PMMC's mission, respects Open Space mandates, and avoids fast-tracked changes without due diligence. Creating and ad hoc committee with real community representation increases transperancy, incorporates on-the-ground knoweldge about how the Space is used, and provides a constructive way forward, as well as reducing the City's risk by ensuring Grant and land-use restrictions are fully understood. It also demonstrates a collabrative support for PMMC's work while protecting our Open Space and taxpayers.
Undere CEQA, an activity is a "project" if it:
1. Is undertaken, supported, or approved by a Public agency, and
2. May cause either direct physical change or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the enviornment (Pub.Res. Code Section 21065) CEQA Guidlines Section 15061(b)(3), the Common Sense Exemption, states that CEQA does not apply only if:
"it can be seen with certainty that there is NO possibility that the activity may have significant effect on the enviornment".
This is a very high bar. If there is any possibility of enviornmental effect, the exemption FAILS.
The Ad Hoc committee is NOT purely advisory and FAILS the Common Sense Exemption under CEQA Section 15601(b)(3) because the committee's formation is part of a broader discretionary process that has foreseeable physical consequences.
The committee's purpose is to evaluate the PMMC's permanant exclusive-use of the current field hospital located within the Dogpark Open Space operating under a Temporary Use Permit, explore and consider alternative sites for the PMMC field hospital, and assess facility siting, each of which are discretionary decisions that have reasonably foreseeable outcomes with potential enviornmental effects.
Under CEQA, foreseeability is enough to qualify as a "project". It further requires that alternatives not be foreclosed prematurely, if the commitee is formed to evaluate specific options ie narrow alternatives or lock in certain choices, constituting pre-committment by CEQA.
CEQA Guidlines Section 15004(b)(2)(A) prohibits agencies from "committing to a definite course of action prior to CEQA compliance." The formation of a committee to pursue specific siting or permitting paths can be viewed as a step to committment, not a nuetral administrative action.
The Section 15601(b)(3) Standard is Extremely Narrow. Courts have held that the Common Sense exemption applies only in the absence of any enviornmental risk, and fails of there is any fair argument of potential impact. If the committee's recommendations are even one step toward issuing permits, building facilities, or altering public land, then the exemption does not apply.
The Ad Hoc Committee's purpose is not a neutral administrative activity, nor purely analytical. It IS a step toward policy-forming and siting-related that will alter the physical enviornment and Public Use.
CEQA applies at the "earliest feasible time." CEQA must PRECEDE decisions that shape outcomes. A committee tasked with screening sites, evaluating legal permissability, and recommending development paths affects enviornmental outcomes through project formulation- and thus belongs INSIDE CEQA, not outside of it.
Statement # 3
SUNSETTING OF AD HOC COMMITTEE
Committee members often accumulate technical background, community history, and subject matter expertise. Sunsetting can disperse that knowledge unless transitioned well. It also interrupts CEQA oversight, the Public being shut out of the decision making process, and damage to the Public's trust and goodwill.
How the decision looks often matters as much as what it does. The PMMC issue has hogh public interest and needs public input and is the only venue for structured stakeholder engagement. Grant or regulatory deadlines require continuity.
For these reasons sunsetting of the Ad Hoc committee is opposed.
Statement # 4
STAKEHOLDER REQUEST FOR CEQA DETERMINTION REGARDING PROPOSED AD HOC COMMITTEE TO
EVALUATE PMMC PERMANENT USE PERMIT AND ALTERNATIVE FIELD HOSPITAL LOCATIONS Pursuant to CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 13, Cal. Code Regs. Section 15000 et seq.) I respecfully submit a Request for Determination to clarify whether the proposed establishment of an Ad Hoc committee to evaluate (a) the legality of the PMMC Permanent Use Permit for Open Space at the DogPark, and (b) potential alternative sites for a PMMC field hospital, constitutes a "project" under CEQA.
This determination is necessary to ensure compliance with CEQA's procedural and substantive requirements and to protect the public agnecy and stakeholders from future compliance challenges, litigation risk, ad prejudicial decision-making.
These activities directly relate to discretionary land-use decisions and permitting actions with with reasonable and foreseeable direct or indirect physical and enviornmental implications, and qualify as a "project" under CEQA guidelines. The Ad Hoc committees activities contemplated outcomes relate directly to both POLICY and PERMITTING OUTCOMES.
To ensure compliance with CEQA, it is hereby requested that the City:
1. Issue a formal written CEQA determination specifying whether the proposed Ad Hoc committee constitutes a CEQA "project" under CEQA Guidlines;
2. If the City determines that the activity is a CEQA project, specify the anticipated enviornmental review pathway (Initial Study, Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or Envirnmental Impact Report;
3. If the City determines that the activity is is not a CEQA project, provide a written factual basis for that conclusion, including citations to applicable CEQA statutes, guidelines, exemptions, or case law;
4. Suspend formation and operation of the Ad Hoc committee until such CEQA determination has been made and noticed in accordance with CEQA Public Disclosure requirements.
A CEQA determination at the stage is essential because CEQA:
Must be performed at the earliest possible stage in the planning process (CEQA Guidelines Section 15004(b); Prohibits agencies from committing to or approving a projet prior to completing CEQA Guidelines (Section 15004(a), 15004(b)(1)); Bars agencies for piecemealing or segmenting related actions to CEQA review.
For the reasons stated above, Stakeholder(s) respectfully request that the City issue a formal CWQA determination regarding the proposed Ad Hoc committee before taking any further action.
The City's attention to this important compliance matter is greatly appreciated and Stakeholder(s) stand ready to provide supportin evidence and public testimony as needed.