McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agenda Item 16 - Surfing Zone / Special Events From: Aaron Peluso
Sent: Monday, April 13, 2026 9:31 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 16 - Surfing Zone / Special Events Dear City Council -
I am writing regarding agenda item 16.
Swimming and Surfing Areas - I think this is an excellent update that more accurately reflects current practice in South Laguna and the rest of the city.
Area No. 5 - I understand this area is South Laguna though I don't know where that is defined? I notice that Areas 1 - 4 are all defined in line. Perhaps defining Area 5 in the same manner would improve clarity? As for the content of the proposed language on Area 5, I think its great. I think it accurately reflects the current practice in South Laguna regarding skimboarding and surfing.
Regarding the rest of the surfing section updates: These also look great and better reflect current practices than the existing language.
Shade Coverings
Within the proposed language, the code limits coverings to 6x6 at parks (a(2)). What kind of 6x6 shade covering can you actually use at a park? Are 10x10 EZ ups at parks not adjacent to the beach problematic? With small kids, I regularly attend (and have) birthdays at parks such as Moulton and Lang. A 10x10 EZ up over the picnic table is very common and convenient. If it is problematic, perhaps an administrative permit could be an option (see my permit idea below)? Staff Proposal: (a)1 ii. 8x8 shade coverings make no sense on the beach. If implemented we will end up with 10x 10s again partially shrunk down looking worse than they do at full size. 6' in height also makes no sense. Shade coverings of these sizes don't really exist.
Staff Proposal (a) 2 ii. This is an improvement allowing 10x10s at parks not adjacent to the beach. Great way to define it. I personally think they should also be allowed over the picnic tables at Heisler. It doesn't look great but it's really hard to use that space during the day without some shade. Alternatively, the city could provide some permanent shade there, which would really be best.
Canopy Zone Mock Ups @ Aliso/Main - Aliso functionally has room for a handful of canopies behind or to the side of the lifeguard towers. The mockup showing the lifeguard tower locations at Aliso is incorrect; the main tower is half on the sidewalk at its deepest point. Further, allowing EZ Ups in front of the parking lot is awful in practice. Tent city is not the image we want and it also presents safety concerns. The only "good" location for EZ ups at Aliso is by the fire pits to the side of Lost Pier. Aliso can handle about 2 EZ ups on the main beach before visibility by the public, officers, and marine safety begins to become seriously limited. 1 I am perfectly fine with banning all EZ ups. Rules are rules. The lost pier and shops near Main Beach rent/sell beach umbrellas that cost far less than an EZ Up. That can be the fallback and might be the best option for us as a city.
If you really want a relief valve on EZ ups, I think a administrative permit system for Aliso and Main could be a good option. Allocate that 3 EZ ups are allowed at Aliso and 6 are allowed at Main per day (behind lifeguard towers), but only with an administrative permit purchased from the city. The permit's purpose is to ensure a reasonable number of EZ ups are on the beach each day (e.g., 3 and 6). All staff needs to do is check a spreadsheet to ensure they don't issue extra permits for any given day. The process could likely also be handled online automatically. The applicant pays $50-$100 to cover staff time or the cost of the online permit process. This would allow people to have shade for grandma or their kids birthday party at the beach if they plan ahead. It would also allow marine safety officers and rangers to use a softer tone when approaching EZ-ups to ask for their permit rather than explaining that they are banned outright. Without a permit, the shade structure must come down, unless they can pay online on their phone if a canopy spot is still available that day.
Or just proceed to ban them outright. That might be simpler. :) Aaron