MINUTES
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
April 14, 2026
A Study Session of the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach was called to order on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at 3:00 p.m., in the City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California, Mayor Orgill presiding.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kempf, Rounaghi, Whalen, Jones, Orgill PARTICIPATING REMOTELY: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None
STUDY SESSION
*****************
1. PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2026 [Councilmember Sue Kempf arrived after the staff presentation, during Councilmember questions.]
Presentation and Discussion: Staff provided a presentation and responded to Councilmember questions. Staff's recommendation includes a tiered appeal fee structure below full cost recovery. In response to Mayor Pro Tem Jones' question on how the proposed fees compare to fees in other jurisdictions, staff advised that fees reflect Laguna Beach's own staff and consultant costs, making direct comparisons difficult. Community Development Director Matt Schneider commented that a deposit-based, attorney-model billing system represents the highest tier of cost recovery but is administratively intensive.
It was also noted that less than 1% of discretionary actions are appealed.
Regarding hedge height determinations, staff advised that eliminating the need for a discretionary process and appeals would require a municipal code amendment.
Public Testimony: Morris Skenderian, architect, echoed an interest in a comparison of fees to other cities, and asked how 100% cost recovery is calculated. He also questioned the current practice of requiring the applicant to pay for the required noticing for appeals, and he suggested that fees be scaled to project magnitude rather than flat fees.
James Henry, designer, opined that conditions were different in 2021, which is the time period for the baseline being used. He also expressed concern about the disproportionate fee impact on smaller projects relative to high-value projects, and sought clarification on a new "major design review" line item. Henry also wondered why the City has historically subsidized Community Development fees.
Laguna Beach City Council Study Session Minutes April 14, 2026 Anne Caenn, Village Laguna, characterized the proposed appeal fee increase as a barrier to community participation in the planning process; suggested placing more responsibility on applicants and architects to resolve neighbor concerns prior to discretionary reviews; and urged that if fees are increased, appellants be granted equivalent presentation time as applicants had during the original discretionary review hearing.
Penelope Milne, CANDO (Canyon Alliance of Neighborhoods Defense Organization), noted that many municipalities use a two-tiered system distinguishing between applicant- appellants and third-party neighbor or community-group appellants. She also noted that income-based fee waivers are recognized in many jurisdictions, and stated that a fee refund does not assist individuals who cannot afford to initiate an appeal in the first place.
Paul Merritt, Laguna Canyon Conservancy, opposed the proposed appeal fee increases as excessive and burdensome; raised concerns about lack of provisions for indigent or low- income residents; and urged staff to provide a comparison of appeal fees across Southern California jurisdictions.
Toni Iseman urged the City Council to consider the real-world impact of fees and delays on families and individuals seeking to relocate to Laguna Beach; and called for a systemic review of the development review process.
Mary Locatelli noted that city revenues from service fees had decreased by approximately $9 million in the most recent annual report; questioned the reliability of the 2021 fee study as a basis for the proposed increases, citing its methodology (cost allocation of all available staff time rather than a time-and-motion study), its age, and the absence of operational improvement recommendations; and suggested that the proposed increases effectively pass the impact of inflation to fee payers without incorporating process or technology improvements made since 2021.
City Council Direction:
• Include an estimate of the current annual general fund subsidy attributable to Community Development Department fees.
• Present alternatives to the flat $4,500 appeal fee, including options for a tiered structure differentiated by appellant type (e.g., applicant vs. third-party neighbor or community organization).
• Identify and present specific fee line items that would be affected by the pending efficiency ordinance, and provide an estimate of the corresponding fee-level impact. • Explore and present for Council consideration a tiered fee structure based on the number of review cycles, to incentivize complete project submittals and reward applicants who resolve issues within fewer hearings.
• Address comments raised, including: methodology and composition of cost components in the 2021 fee study; comparison of Laguna Beach fees to fees charged by coastal peer jurisdictions; basis for the new "major design review" fee line item; and the history and rationale for the City's subsidy of community development fees. -2-
Laguna Beach City Council Study Session Minutes April 14, 2026
ADJOURNMENT
****************
There being no further business, Mayor Orgill at 3:41 p.m., Tuesday, April 14, 2026, adjourned to Closed Session, then to the Regular City Council Meeting at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach California. ****************
Approved: April 28, 2026
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
Note: All components of minutes shall be for the primary purpose of memorializing decisions made by the legislative body. Any minute component that does not serve this primary purpose will be minimized or eliminated; this includes comments made by individual body members and members of the public. Discussions that occurred during the meeting can be viewed in archived video recordings on the city's website. Public submittals on items received prior to adjournment of the meeting are retained in the administrative record and can be viewed in the city clerk's repository. -3-