ORDINANCE NO. 26.XXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 18 AND
SECTIONS 6.16.020 AND 8.04.010 OF THE LAGUNA BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE; AND FINDING SUCH ACTION EXEMPT
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15304
WHEREAS, the City of Laguna Beach, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the California Constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the police powers delegated to it by the California Constitution, the City has the authority to enact laws which promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizens; and
WHEREAS, on May 16, 2023, the City Council directed staff to develop a special event permit process to authorize private events at Aliso Beach and other South Laguna Beaches as needed; and
WHEREAS, since then, City staff has identified other areas of City property that members of the public and private organizations would like to use for special events and other areas of Title 18 that require modification for internal consistency within Title 18; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend Title 18 (Beaches and Parks) to create a special event permit process to authorize private events at Aliso Beach and other South Laguna Beaches, as needed, as well as at other City property and to make changes to streamline and add consistency to the application of Title 18 as a whole; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Recitals. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings in support of this Ordinance as if fully set forth herein.
SECTION 2. Code Amendment. Laguna Beach Municipal Code Title 18 is hereby Attachment 3
42 42 of 779
repealed and replaced with Title 18, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. Code Amendment. Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 6.16.020 (Dogs on beaches, in parks and school grounds—When and where prohibited) is hereby repealed and replaced with the provisions, which are attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Code Amendment. Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 8.04.010 (Drinking or possession in public places) is hereby repealed and replaced with the provisions, which are attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5. CEQA. This Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land, Class 4) which exempts minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc. (14 CCR Section 15304(e).) Here, this action will allow people to use portions of the City’s parks and beaches and other City property for special events for a temporary period of time subject to rules and regulations of the City and makes other changes to streamline and add consistency to the application of Title 18. This action does not authorize permanent infrastructure and merely creates an administrative system to allow persons to coordinate use of the beach and other City property. Therefore, this action falls within the minor alterations to land exemption.
None of the exceptions to the use of the categorical exemptions identified in State CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The Project will not result in a cumulative impact from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. Moreover, there are no unusual circumstances surrounding the Project that would result in a reasonably possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the Project will not damage scenic resources, 43 43 of 779
including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources. The Project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Finally, the Project does not include any hazardous waste sites. Thus, Class 4 exemption applies, and no further environmental review is required. The City Council directs staff to cause a Notice of Exemption to be filed with the County of Orange County and State Clearing house within five (5) days of adoption of this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its adoption by the City Council.
SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
Not later than fifteen (15) days following the passage of this Ordinance, the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the Ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the ____ day of ______, 2026.
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH:
________________________________
Mark Orgill
Mayor
44 44 of 779
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on _____________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
45 45 of 779
EXHIBIT “A”
Title 18. Beach and Parks
Chapter 18.01 DEFINITIONS
For purposes of Title 18, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
“Beach Adjacent Park” means Aliso Beach Park, Crescent Bay Park Point, Heisler Park, Montage Park, and Main Beach Park.
"Business" means and includes "business," "profession," "trade," "calling," "occupation," "show," "exhibition" or "game," and all and every kind of calling carried on for profit or livelihood whether or not a profit or livelihood is actually earned thereby and whether or not said business has a fixed place of business in the city.
"Charcoal" means a carbon substance obtained as a residue when wood or other organic matter is heated in the absence of air.
“Commercial dog training” means any training activity where a person is receiving compensation, donations, or anything of value for training a dog.
"Commercial stand-up paddling" means the use, in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the shoreline within the city boundaries, of any stand-up paddleboard and paddle. Commercial stand-up paddling activity refers to any business, activity or act for financial compensation in connection with conducting classes, tours, instruction, lessons or group activities in stand-up paddling. "Constitutionally protected expressive activities involving the use of structures" means and refers to conduct and activities that encompasses, entails or includes the erection and use of stages, tables, barricades, utility poles, booths, tents or other temporary structures in addition to the tables, benches, permanent structures, equipment and facilities provided by the city, and the sole or principal purpose of which is the expression, dissemination, or communication by verbal, visual, literary or auditory means of opinion, views or ideas.
"Fire log" means any manufactured log constructed of sawdust; sawdust and paraffin; or waste fiber from the oil palm.
"Garbage" is all animal and vegetable refuse, all vegetable and fruit trimmings, all other refuse that shall have been prepared for, or intended to be used as food, or shall have resulted from the preparation of food, and shall also include coffee grounds, eggshells, and all other food refuse. “Motorboat" includes any vessel propelled by machinery, whether or not such machinery is the principal source of propulsion.
46 46 of 779
"Natural wood" means the hard fibrous substance consisting basically of xylem that makes up the greater part of the stems, branches, and roots of trees and shall not include any material that has been processed or treated including, but not limited to, wooden pallets, books, newspapers, furniture, or construction materials.
“Non-Beach Adjacent Park” means Alta Laguna Park, Bluebird Park, Community and Recreation, South Laguna Village Green Center, High School and Community Pool, Indoor Chapel Park, Laguna Beach Dog Park, Lang Park, Moulton Meadows Park, Riddle Field Park, Temporary Skate Ramps, Wilcoxen Park.
"Organized play" means six persons or more engaging as a member of a league, sports association, or commercial enterprise in a team sport athletic contest, such as, but not limited to, soccer, lacrosse, baseball, softball, football, basketball, tennis, pickleball, sand volleyball, running, swimming, or training.
"Scuba diving" means the use, in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the shoreline within the city boundaries, of any face mask, diving fins, snorkel, knife, abalone iron, spear or spear gun, in any combination or combinations, together with any self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. “Shade covering” means a canopy, awning, umbrella, tent, cabana, easy-up, or cover. "Skin diving" means the use, in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the shoreline within the city boundaries, of any or all of the articles of equipment described in the definition of “scuba diving” except the use of self-contained underwater breathing apparatus. “Special event” means both:
a) Organized public or private gatherings or activities, whether for profit or not for profit, that exceed the capacity of designated areas specified by resolution of the city council. Private or public gatherings within the capacity of the designated areas set by resolution are not considered special events for purposes of this chapter. b) The following organized public or private gatherings or activities, whether for profit or not for profit:
1. Informal weddings;
2. Outdoor gatherings, concerts, festivals, art shows, and exhibits;
3. Commercial stand-up paddling activity;
4. Commercial dog training;
5. Outdoor athletic contests;
6. Organized play;
7. Special organized recreational boating events; and
8. Other similar activities at the determination of the City Manager or designee. 47 47 of 779
"Store" means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to place or to leave in a location.
“Structure” means tables, signs, coolers, sports equipment, a volleyball court, or other temporary items.
“Surfing" means the use in the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the shoreline within the boundaries of the city of any surfboard, paddleboard, skimboarding, or other similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, glass, hard plastic, or any other hard substance. "Trash" means and includes rubbish, newspapers, magazines, all discarded paper and wrappings, tin cans, glass containers, broken glass, boxes, discarded clothing, dead animals or fish, ashes, waste wood, or any other waste material.
"Vegetation" means any and all types of trees, plants, bushes, hedges and shrubs, but not including grass.
"Vessel" means every description of watercraft used or capable of being used as a means of transportation on water.
"Wet sand" means that portion of the beach that is wet as a result of the wash of the waves or tidal action.
Chapter 18.02 USE OF CITY BEACHES AND PARKS
§ 18.02.005. Intent and purpose.
a) The police power to promote the public peace, morals, health, safety and general welfare authorizes the city of Laguna Beach to regulate the use of public property, including beaches and parks, and to impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, and manner of the use of public property, including beach and park use. b) In accordance with this authority, the city intends to impose reasonable requirements on the use of public property, including beaches and parks to maintain and maximize: (1) the natural beauty and aesthetic attractiveness of public property, including beach and park areas; (2) the guarantees of freedom of speech and association contained in the Constitutions of the United States and the state of California; (3) the availability of limited beach and park areas for diverse uses; and (4) public safety, including, without limitation, the free flow of pedestrian and vehicle traffic in and around public property, including beach and park areas.
§ 18.02.010. General use.
a) Unless otherwise reserved pursuant to this chapter, city parks and beaches are available to the public for general active and passive recreational use and constitutionally protected 48 48 of 779
expressive activities in accordance with the design and character of the area being used.
No reservations shall be taken for general use of parks or beaches. b) Except as expressly authorized otherwise in this chapter, parks and beaches are to be used only with the structures, equipment, and other facilities provided by the city. c) Except as expressly authorized otherwise in this chapter, no additional tables, booths, tents or structures may be erected or installed for general use activities. § 18.02.015. Closing times.
a) Except as otherwise provided in this Title, all city beaches and coastal-adjacent parks shall be closed to public use during the times set by city council resolution. b) Except as otherwise provided in this Title, all noncoastal-adjacent parks shall be closed to public use at ten p.m. and shall remain closed until five a.m. § 18.02.020. Entering, remaining or staying during closing times.
Except as otherwise provided in this Title, no person shall enter, remain, or stay on any city beach or in any city park at any time when such beach or park is closed to public use. § 18.02.025. Park curfew hours.
It is unlawful for any person to be within the area known as Crescent Bay Point Park between the hours of twelve midnight and five a.m. of the following day. § 18.02.030. Posting of Hours.
The city manager, or designee, shall post or cause to be posted appropriate signs in conspicuous locations giving notice of closing times and, as applicable, the exceptions provided in this Title
18. § 18.02.035. Exceptions.
a) The provisions of Sections 18.02.015, 18.02.020, and 18.02.025 of this code shall not apply to the following activities, including the most direct safe route available at any given location to conduct such activities as determined by city council resolution, when conducted on wet sand or within twenty feet inland of the wet sand of all beaches:
1. Walking;
2. Jogging;
3. Fishing (by members of the public having on their possession a valid California fishing license);
4. Grunion hunting;
5. Scuba diving;
6. Surfing;
7. Swimming in the ocean.
b) The provisions of Sections 18.02.015, 18.02.020, and 18.02.025 of this code shall not apply to the following activities:
49 49 of 779
1. Activities as may be expressly permitted by preemption of state law or as may be allowed pursuant to a resolution of the city council.
2. Performance of official business by any city officer or employee or any other person authorized by the city.
3. Any city-sponsored activity, program or special event.
4. Any activity, program or special event for which a city special event permit has been issued.
§ 18.02.040. Special Event: Permit Required
a) In accordance with its legal authority and intent to protect the public peace, morals, health, safety, and general welfare and public property, the city requires special event permits for certain activities and uses on city parks and beaches.
b) No person shall cause a “Special Event” to occur in any city park, beach, or property without first obtaining a city special event permit.
c) The city requires special event permits for the purposes of:
1. Accommodating and coordinating activities planned by different individuals and groups so that as many people as possible can use and enjoy the natural and existing beach and park environment at the same time;
2. Learning about the proposed activity to minimize or prevent inconvenience or harm to the public and public property or visual blight and degradation of beach and park areas;
3. Requiring appropriate insurance or other measures to relieve the city of liability and reduce unnecessary exposure of the city to personal injury or property damage claims or suits from harm that can occur from the use of, including the use of private structures on, public property; and
4. Ensuring that facilities most suited for the proposed activity are used without unnecessarily restricting the rights of free expression or assembly guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the state of California. d) This section is not intended to in any way discriminate against, regulate, or interfere with the rights or content of constitutionally protected freedom of expression or association. § 18.02.045 Special Event Permit.
a) The city manager or designee shall be responsible for the administration of the special event permit process and shall develop application forms and any further internal city rules, regulations and requirements consistent with this chapter and deemed necessary to administer it.
b) No special event permit will be issued on City beaches or parks beginning Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day unless the special event permit is ultimately approved in advance of the event by the City Manager.
c) Special event permit applications must be submitted in writing at least thirty calendar days before the date of the proposed activity on a form approved by the city manager or his/her designee.
50 50 of 779
d) Special event permit applications will be processed in the order in which they are received and a permit will be issued or denied within fifteen calendar days after it is received. e) Special event permits issued under this chapter may also require a Coastal Development Permit, or may be exempt or excluded from a Coastal Development Permit requirement, as provided in sections 25.07.007 and 25.07.008(A)(6).
f) Special event permit applications will be denied only if:
1. The special event permit application is not fully completed and executed or contains a material falsehood or misrepresentation, or the applicant has on prior occasions made material misrepresentations regarding the nature or scope of activity previously permitted or has violated the terms of a previous permit;
2. The applicant has not tendered any required application fee, indemnification agreement, or insurance certificate;
3. A fully executed prior application for a special event permit for the same time and place has been received and has been or will be granted to a prior applicant or the use or activity intended by the applicant would conflict with previously planned activities organized and conducted by the city and previously scheduled for the same time and place;
4. The proposed use or activity intended by the applicant would present an unreasonable imminent danger to the health or safety of the applicant, other users of the park, city employees, or the public, or cause damage to any public or private property, or will create an unreasonable demand upon the city's emergency services personnel and equipment so as to cause potential imminent deficiencies in such services and endanger the public health and welfare;
5. The proposed use or activity is prohibited by law; or
6. Other grounds set forth in this Title or as established by the city manager. g) If a special event permit application is denied, the city manager or designee will notify the applicant in a writing that clearly sets forth the grounds for such denial, and, where feasible, will suggest alternative times or places to conduct the proposed use or activity or propose any measures by which the applicant may cure any defects in the special event permit application.
h) The permittee of activities conducted pursuant to a special event permit under this section shall:
1. Be responsible to monitor the area in which the activity is being conducted, to collect and dispose of all litter generated by the permittee in connection with the activity, to remove all structures used in connection with the activity upon its conclusion, and to otherwise restore the area used to its pre-existing condition if any alteration of the area has resulted from the conduct of the permittee or any person who was or reasonably should have been within the permittee’s control.
2. Be required to:
i. To obtain a standard policy of liability insurance naming the city as an additional insured with respect to any liability, loss, damage, or injury incurred by the city, or by any other person and claimed against the city, which is proximately caused by the permittee or its officers, agents, or 51 51 of 779
employees, or any person who was or reasonably should have been within the permittee’s control;
ii. To agree to reimburse the city for any costs incurred by it in restoring damage to or cleaning public property after the activity as is necessary due to damage or degradation which is proximately caused by the permittee or its officers, agents, or employees or any person who was or reasonably should have been within the permittee’s control; and
iii. To agree to defend, protect, indemnify, and hold the city free and harmless from and against any and all liability, loss, damage, or injury incurred by the city, or by any other person and claimed against the city, which is proximately caused by the permittee or its officers, agents, or employees, or any person who was or reasonably should have been within the permittee’s control.
§ 18.02.050 Special Event Fees
a) Application and use fees established from time to time by the city council in accordance with this section for constitutionally protected expressive activities shall be reasonably related to the city's actual costs incident to the administration of this chapter or the provision of city services.
b) When establishing or requiring payment of application or use fees or the amount of liability insurance coverage, providing a waiver of fees or insurance requirements, establishing or accepting in lieu contributions as an alternative to fees, issuing or denying a special event permit, or otherwise acting in enforcement of this title as applied to constitutionally protected expressive activities, no consideration shall be given as to the identity or associational relationships of the special event permit applicant, the content, subject matter, or viewpoint of any expression or message communicated by or during a proposed activity, or to any assumptions or predictions of the amount of hostility that may be aroused in the public by the content, subject matter or viewpoint of the expression or message conveyed by the applicant or proposed activity.
c) No applicant for or recipient of a special event permit for constitutionally protected activities involving the use of structures shall be required to provide or pay the cost of public safety personnel necessary to provide for the protection of the applicant and its attendees from hostile members of the public, traffic control or general law enforcement in the vicinity of the proposed activity.
d) Except as expressly provided otherwise in this section, in establishing or imposing application and use fees, the amount of liability insurance coverage or premiums, a waiver of fees or insurance requirements, or the acceptance of in-lieu contributions consideration shall be given only to physical attributes of the proposed activity consisting of the type, size and number of any proposed temporary structure(s), the estimated attendees, excluding hostile members of the public or counter-demonstrators, at and duration of the activity, and the reasonably estimated extra city personnel hours anticipated to be used for such activity. e) No individual or organization applying for a special event permit for the purpose of conducting a constitutionally protected expressive activity for which a special event permit is required shall be required to pay an application or use fee or procure insurance, if the special event permit application includes reasonably satisfactory documentation or other 52 52 of 779
evidence demonstrating the applicant's indigence and financial status, or that payment of fees or procurement of insurance is impossible or so financially burdensome that it would preclude the applicant from using beach or park property. If the city manager or his or her designee determines, after consultation with the city's risk manager, that a particular use, event or activity does not present a substantial or significant public liability or property damage exposure for the city, the city manager or designee may give a written waiver of the insurance requirements of this section.
§ 18.02.055 Appeals
Any determination by the city manager or designee regarding a special event permit may be appealed to the city council pursuant to Chapter 2.02 of this code. § 18.02.060 Main Beach Park.
a) Constitutionally Protected Expressive Activities Involving the Use of Structures:
1. The hard surface cobblestone area located in the southerly portion of Main Beach Park shall be available not more than five days per month on a first-come, firstserved basis by reservation through the special event permit process for the conduct of constitutionally protected expressive activities involving the use of structures.
2. Such activities, which shall be sponsored by an individual or organization, may be conducted by the same individual or organization on not more than two days in any consecutive six-month period if conducting such activities more frequently would result in the exclusion of any other individual or organizations from using the cobblestone area to conduct constitutionally protected expressive activities involving the use of structures.
b) Other Special Events Involving the Use of Structures:
1. The hard surface cobblestone area located in the southerly portion of Main Beach Park shall be available not more than two days per month on a first-come, firstserved basis by reservation through the special event permit process for the conduct of other special events.
2. Such activities, which shall be sponsored by an individual or organization, may be conducted by the same individual or organization on not more than fourteen days in any calendar year.
3. Sales relating to the special event are authorized at the hard surface cobblestone area. Each vendor must have a Laguna Beach business license and shall display the license number.
c) The planning of such activities and location of such structures as are authorized in this section shall:
1. Comply with all applicable public health and safety requirements and shall be coordinated with the city so that the activity is carried on in a manner which will minimize to the greatest practical extent the prevention of or substantial interference with the ordinary and normal public usage of Main Beach Park for active and passive recreational and aesthetic enjoyment and constitutionally protected expressive activities.
53 53 of 779
2. Not utilize a single structure in excess of six hundred square feet in area or in excess of eight feet in height.
§ 18.02.065 Informal weddings.
a) Certain areas designated for informal weddings may be reserved through the special event permit process on a first-come-first-served basis, upon payment of a nonrefundable fee to be established by resolution.
b) No additional tables or chairs or other facilities may be erected for such ceremonies. c) No alcoholic beverages shall be served and no amplified sound shall be permitted. d) The maximum number of the wedding party and guests shall not exceed fifty people in the Gazebo at Heisler Park or at Crescent Bay Park.
e) Up to ninety-five people are allowed per wedding in other locations in Heisler Park. f) No more than two weddings per day shall be permitted at Crescent Bay Park. § 18.02.070 Outdoor gatherings, concerts, festivals, art shows and exhibitions. a. Any outdoor gathering, concert, festival, art show, or exhibitions involving the use of structures and not otherwise provided for in this chapter or elsewhere in this code shall be held at Irvine Bowl Park.
b. The use of the amphitheater and festival grounds at Irvine Bowl shall be on a first-come, first-served basis by reservation through the special event permit process and is subject to the requirements of any existing or subsequently approved lease of those facilities. Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede the provisions of any such lease. Outdoor gatherings to be attended by more than two thousand five hundred persons require a license pursuant to Chapter 5.68 of this code.
c. If the Irvine Bowl Park is unavailable for an outdoor gathering, concert, festival, art show, or exhibition involving the use of structures, the sponsor of a special event can propose the event at an alternative location. The City Manager shall either approve or deny such special event permit application.
§ 18.02.075 Independence Day celebration.
The city council finds and declares that, in consideration of the city-wide ban on the use of fireworks, it is in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare to permit and conduct a public fireworks display at Main Beach on or about July 4th of each year to celebrate Independence Day.
§ 18.02.080 Penalty.
a) A violation of this Chapter may be prosecuted as an infraction in accordance with the provisions of Section 1.04.025 of this code, or alternatively, an administrative citation may be issued pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1.15 of this code. b) In addition, or as a further alternative, the city may pursue any form of administrative remedy, civil action or other judicial relief against a person, business or enterprise violating the provisions of this chapter.
54 54 of 779
§ 18.02.085 Severability.
If any provision of this chapter or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this chapter, or the application thereof to other persons and circumstances shall not be affected thereby; and, to this end, the provisions of this chapter are declared to be severable.
Chapter 18.04 CONDUCT
§ 18.04.010. Garbage and trash.
a) No person shall leave, scatter, throw, or discard any trash or garbage upon any beach, park, public street, alley, or passageway within the city, except as hereinafter provided. b) It shall be the duty of every person having in his possession, charge or control, any garbage or trash upon any beach, park, public street, alley, or passageway, either to place said garbage and trash in public garbage and trash containers located on or in said beaches, parks, public streets, alleys or passageways, if such containers are available, or to take said garbage and trash with him or her when he or she leaves said beach, park, public street, alley or passageway within the city.
c) The prohibitions, regulations, and restrictions in this chapter contained, relative to the disposal of garbage and trash, shall not apply to the disposal of garbage and trash as defined, regulated, and provided by Chapter 7.16 (Solid Waste Disposal and Organic Waste Diversion) of this code.
d) It is unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to place, dump, deposit, or otherwise cause to be deposited, any foreign substance or material, including, but not limited to, dirt, wood, trees, roots, shrubs, plants, sand, brick, rock, gravel, masonry, or plaster, in or on public beaches or tidelands within the city limits, or to place, dump, deposit, or otherwise cause to be deposited, any such foreign substance or material anywhere within the city limits in such a way that it is reasonable to expect that the normal action of the elements or tides or winds will cause such materials to become deposited in or on said tidelands. § 18.04.015. Display or sale of merchandise prohibited. a) Except as expressly provided by this code, no person shall sell, offer to sell, or display for sale, or rent, offer to rent, or display for rent, goods, wares, merchandise, foodstuffs, refreshments, or other kinds of property or services in any beach or park. b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to the sale, display for sale, or offer in exchange for a donation, conducted without the use of stands or other temporary or permanent structures, of:
1. Newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets, or other written materials; or
2. Constitutionally protected expressive merchandise bearing political, religious, philosophical, social, or ideological messages and seeking support for particular causes or support for particular views on economic, political, religious, philosophical, social or ideological issues, without regard to the viewpoint, subject matter, or content contained on or expressed by such newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets, other written 55 55 of 779
materials, or expressive merchandise, or the identity or associational affiliation of any individual or organization offering such materials or merchandise. § 18.04.018. Business on city property.
a) No person shall in any manner while on city property, including beaches and parks, sell any product or service or engage in any other business or commercial activity without obtaining a business license and the prior written approval of the city manager, or duly authorized representative.
b) This section does not apply to any concession operated under authority granted by the city council, nor to any other activity specifically authorized, regulated, or exempted by order or resolution of the city council.
§ 18.04.020. Shade Coverings, Tables, and Volleyball Nets and Courts. a) Shade coverings
1. Beaches
i. Shade coverings, other than umbrellas in a form substantially similar to Figure 1, below, are prohibited on all beaches within the City, except for Main Beach and Aliso Beach, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
ii. In the case of shade coverings at Main Beach and Aliso Beach, shade coverings are limited in size to eight feet in width by eight feet in depth by six feet in height and are only allowed in the zones, which are located in line with or behind the lifeguard towers and approved by resolution of the City Council, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City. iii. Any authorized shade covering shall not interfere with a lifeguard's ability to see the water or adjacent lifeguard towers and shall not be located within twenty feet of public and emergency access pathway and not be located within five feet from another shade covering.
iv. Any authorized shade covering shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel.
2. Parks
i. Shade coverings are allowed at beach adjacent parks within the City but cannot exceed eight feet in width by eight feet in depth by six feet in height, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
ii. Shade coverings are allowed at non-beach adjacent parks within the City but cannot exceed ten feet in width by ten feet in depth by ten feet in height, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
iii. Any authorized shade covering shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel. b) Tables
56 56 of 779
1. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any table over six feet in length by three feet in width on any beach within the City, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
2. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any table over six feet in length by three feet in width on any public park within the City, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
3. Any authorized table shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel. c) Volleyball Nets and Courts
1. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any volleyball net or court on any beach within the City, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
2. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any volleyball net or court on any public park within the City, unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
3. Any authorized volleyball net and court shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel.
Figure 1
(Umbrella)
§ 18.04.020. Shade Coverings.
(a) Shade coverings
1. Shade coverings, other than umbrellas in a form substantially similar to Figure 1, below, are prohibited on all beaches within the City.
2. Shade coverings are allowed at all parks within the City but cannot exceed six feet in width by six feet in depth by six feet in height.
57 57 of 779
3. Any authorized shade covering shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel. (b) Tables
1. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any table over six feet in length by three feet in width on any beach within the City.
2. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any table over six feet in length by three feet in width on any public park within the City.
3. Any authorized table shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel. (c) Volleyball Nets and Courts
1. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any volleyball net or court on any beach within the City unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
2. No person shall install, erect, or maintain any volleyball net or court on any public park within the City unless it has been approved by the city manager or designee and has all of the required approvals from the City.
3. Any authorized volleyball net and court shall be relocated at the request of the Marine Safety Department staff, Police Department staff, or other authorized City personnel.
Figure 1
(Umbrella)
§ 18.04.035. Public buildings, structures and improvements. a) No person shall affix or attach any ropes, wires, cords, stakes, poles, hooks, or similar objects to any public buildings or structures in any public parks or beaches, including, but not limited to, lifeguard towers, restrooms, administrative offices, boardwalks, flag poles, public artwork, drinking fountains, barbeques, picnic stoves, fences, walls, railings, benches, tables, and trash receptacles, without the advance written consent of the city manager or designee.
b) No person shall store personal property in or on any public parks and beaches as follows:
1. on or upon any stairs, designated trails, sidewalks, or marked pathways or boardwalks;
2. within twenty feet of any restroom;
3. within fifteen feet of any lifeguard towers or administrative offices; 58 58 of 779
4. within fifteen feet of the oceanward side of the Main Beach boardwalk, beneath or under such boardwalk, or any place where such boardwalk abuts the sand; or
5. during the period from one-half hour after sunset to six a.m. of the following day. No person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer or public officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section and thereafter continues the violation.
c) No person shall place or store any of the following items of personal property in or on any public parks and beaches:
1. hammocks,
2. cots,
3. beds,
4. sleeping bags,
5. mattresses,
6. luggage or
7. portable cooking devices.
d) For purposes of this section, no person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer or public officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section and thereafter continues the violation. § 18.04.045. Public restrooms.
a) No person shall delay, linger, or idle about in the restroom of any city parks and beaches or in the approaches or walks adjacent to any restroom without lawful purpose for being present related to the use of such restroom, and for the purpose or having the effect of preventing, inhibiting, or impairing the intended use of the restroom. b) No person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer or public officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section and thereafter continues the violation.
§ 18.04.055. Disturbing the peace.
Any person who willfully delays or obstructs any city employee in the performance of his or her duties in any city parks and beaches, or who by his or her conduct, or by threatening language, unreasonably annoys or unreasonably interferes with the use of any city parks and beaches by any other person, shall leave the park or beach upon request made by any police officer or other public officer authorized by the city, after a warning has not resulted in cessation of the conduct prohibited by this section.
§ 18.04.065. Use of beach fire barbeques and fire pits. a) Barbeques and Picnic Stoves. No person shall build, set, kindle, make, or maintain a fire (using solid fuel) in any public park or beach that is used or intended to be used for cooking or heating-related food purposes except in city-designated barbeques and picnic stoves provided for such purposes.
b) Fire Pits.
59 59 of 779
1. Fire pits within the city's local coastal program jurisdiction are prohibited unless used as permitted herein.
i. No person shall burn, ignite, or otherwise set on fire any material in a fire pit unless the person is burning natural wood, fire log(s), or charcoal (collectively, "fuel") in a fire pit that has been specifically designated and operated in a manner that has been authorized by resolution of the city council. Except as expressly authorized in this section, open beach fires that burn, ignite, or otherwise set on fire any fuel outside of city-designated fire pits are prohibited at all beaches within the city's local coastal program jurisdiction.
ii. The following terms shall be defined as follows:
a. "Natural wood" means the hard fibrous substance consisting basically of xylem that makes up the greater part of the stems, branches, and roots of trees and shall not include any material that has been processed or treated including, but not limited to, wooden pallets, books, newspapers, furniture, or construction materials.
b. "Fire log" means any manufactured log constructed of sawdust; sawdust and paraffin; or waste fiber from the oil palm.
c. "Charcoal" means a carbon substance obtained as a residue when wood or other organic matter is heated in the absence of air. iii. Portable solid fuel burning fire pits are strictly prohibited on public property including parks and beaches. Portable propane fire pits are only allowed as specifically authorized in Paragraph 10 of Subsection 307.2 of Section 15.01.030 of this code.
2. Use of city-designated fire must comply with the following requirements:
i. A responsible person, at least eighteen years of age, must remain within twenty-five feet of the city-designated fire pit while the fire is burning. ii. Fire may not exceed a height of more than twelve inches above the upper edge of the city-designated fire pit.
iii. Only fuel may be burned in a fire pit. No fuel may be buried in the sand after burning such fuel in a fire pit.
iv. All used natural wood, fire log(s), and charcoal shall remain in the fire pit; only designated city officials shall remove any natural wood, fire log(s), or charcoal and shall deposit them in hot coal receptacles on the beach or transport them off the beach to be deposited in hot coal receptacles. v. No person shall burn trash or debris in a fire pit.
vi. City-designated fire pits are available on a first-come, first-served basis. vii. Location and use of fire pits must comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rules 444 and 445.
viii. Access to fire pits must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. ix. No fire shall be built, set, kindled, made, or maintained during the period of one hour before the closing time of the beach to six a.m. of the following day. Fires must be extinguished with water. Covering the fire with sand is prohibited.
60 60 of 779
x. Outdoor fires are not allowed on public property during hazardous conditions as set forth in Subsection 305.6 of Section 15.01.030 of this code.
§ 18.04.110. Bicycle storage prohibited.
No person shall place or store any bicycles, whether motorized or not, on any portion of Main Beach, the Main Beach Boardwalk, or Heisler Park, except in city-designated storage locations. § 18.04.120. Golf prohibited.
No person shall play or practice the game of golf, including chipping, putting, driving, or any other type of play or practice, which includes the hitting of a golf ball or similar type ball with a golf or similar type club in any city park, beach, or city-owned open space area. § 18.04.130. Operation of ultralight vehicles or balloons.
To the maximum extent permitted by law, no person shall land, release, take off in, or launch any ultralight vehicle or balloon, as defined by 14 CFR Sections 101.1 and 103.1, including ultralight vehicles commonly known as a hang glider, paragliding device, or parasail, from any city-owned land.
Chapter 18.10 BEACHES
§ 18.10.002. Bluffs and vegetation.
a) Purpose and Intent.
1. The public bluffs and vegetation constitute aesthetically pleasing and sensitive features and resources, provide stability to land formations, and mitigate erosion, among other public benefits.
2. The public bluffs and vegetation are not intended or designed to be traversed by the public, used for the disposal of refuse, used for the storage of personal property, or used for other activities that can result in damage to or destruction of such areas, with associated adverse visual and/or functional impacts as well as substantial public expense to maintain, repair, or replace.
3. Stairs, designated trails, sidewalks, and marked pathways exist to allow the public to move through public areas.
b) Protection of Bluffs and Vegetation in Public Areas.
1. No person shall remove, destroy, damage, traverse over or through, lie on or within, or affix or attach any ropes, wires, cords, stakes, poles, hooks, or similar objects to, or store, place, or discard personal property or refuse on or within any public bluff or any vegetation planted in any public parks or beaches, including, but not limited to, open space areas and planters.
61 61 of 779
2. For purposes of this section, no person shall be cited under this section unless he or she has first been notified by a police officer or public officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this section and thereafter continues the violation. § 18.10.003. Prohibition of the use or possession of glass articles on city beaches.
No person shall have, possess, or use any article made of glass as a container upon any city beach. § 18.10.005. Digging holes.
No person shall dig or cause the digging of any hole in the sand exceeding a depth of two feet.
Any person who digs, or causes to be dug, any hole upon the beach shall fill the hole before leaving the hole unattended.
§ 18.10.010. Removal of sand.
No person shall remove or cause to be removed from any beach any sand without written permission from the marine safety chief.
§ 18.10.015. Beach activities, sports, and games.
No person shall engage in any activities or conduct or participate in any sports or games that constitute a hazard to any person, including, but not limited to, sand throwing, or the use of a hard ball, softball, bat, football, paddleball, Frisbee, boomerang, or other athletic apparatus or game equipment or object.
§ 18.10.020. Fishing from beach.
a) Each person fishing from the public beach shall at all times have due regard for the safety of persons on the beach or in the water by refraining from overhead casting or fishing too close to swimmers or beach patrons.
b) The supervising lifeguard on duty has the authority to prohibit, restrict, or otherwise regulate fishing in the interest of public health, safety, and welfare. § 18.10.025. Diving/jumping.
No person shall dive or jump into any body of water in park, beach, or any recreational area from any rock or precipice other than at those places designated and posted for diving or jumping by the city manager, marine safety chief, or police chief or their authorized designees, or any other officer or employee designated by the city council.
§ 18.10.030. Lifesaving apparatus and lifeguard tower limitations. a) No person shall handle, use, or molest in any manner or destroy any lifesaving apparatus or lifesaving equipment which is placed upon or near any beach within the city. b) No person shall climb, hang, or sit or cause someone to climb, hang, or sit on any lifeguard tower.
62 62 of 779
c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any authorized lifeguard, or any person acting under the direction of an authorized lifeguard, or any person who shall use such equipment and apparatus for the purpose of saving life or making a rescue in emergency. § 18.10.035. Disobeying a lifeguard.
No person shall willfully resist, delay, interfere or disobey any lifeguard in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her position.
Chapter 18.12. RIDING
§ 18.12.010. Horses, vehicles and electric personal assistive mobility devices prohibited— Exceptions.
a) No person, except authorized law enforcement, shall ride, lead, or drive any horse or horses, or ride, drive, or operate any motor vehicle, electric personal assistive mobility device (as defined by the California Vehicle Code) including bicycles or any motorized riding equipment, upon any portion of the beach within the limits of this city. b) The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to:
1. any person, firm, or corporation using, riding or driving horses or motor vehicles, including bicycles, upon said beach when employed by this city to clean said beach;
2. any person, firm, or corporation using, riding or driving horses or motor vehicles, including bicycles, upon said beach when issued a special event permit pursuant to this Title to ride, lead, or drive horses or to ride, operate, or drive motor vehicles, including bicycles, upon said beach; or
3. any person with disabilities operating an electric personal assistive mobility device (as defined by the California Vehicle Code) upon said beach.
Chapter 18.20. SURFING AND SWIMMING
§ 18.20.020. Swimming and Surfing—Hazardous conditions.
At any time when conditions become hazardous as a result of storm, congestion of persons, or other conditions which cause a present danger to persons swimming, surfing, or to others using the beach, including the water, the city manager, marine safety chief, or police chief or their authorized designees, or any other officer or employee designated by the city council, may prohibit swimming and surfing with a surfboard, paddleboard, or similar device during the period of such hazardous conditions. No person shall fail, refuse, or neglect to stop swimming or surfing or fail, refuse, or neglect to leave the water when ordered to do so by any such employee of the city. § 18.20.025. Swimming and Surfing Areas.
a) All waters within two hundred yards from the shoreline are designated as swimming and surfing areas, except that from June fifteenth and September fifteenth, both dates inclusive, of each calendar year, there are designated surfing areas to the exclusion of swimming, unless otherwise therein authorized.
63 63 of 779
1. The following described areas of the Pacific Ocean are hereby designated as surfing areas, and surfing within said areas only during the daylight hours enumerated below shall be permitted:
i. Area No. 1: That area lying between a point one hundred fifty feet south of the southerly extension of Brooks Street and a point one hundred fifty feet north of the northerly extension of Brooks Street only during the hours from sunup to sundown;
ii. Area No. 2: That area lying between a point ninety feet south of the southerly extension of St. Ann's Drive and a point two hundred feet south of the southern extension of Thalia Street only during the hours from sunup to sundown;
iii. Area No. 3: That area lying between Victor Hugo's Point and the stairway entrance below Jasmine Street only during the hours from sunup to sundown;
iv. Area No. 4: That area lying between a point one hundred twenty-five feet south of the southerly extension of Agate Street and a point one hundred feet north of the northerly extension. The hours of surfing to be from sunup until twelve noon and then five p.m. until sunset;
v. Area No. 5: Surfing and swimming is allowed in Area No. 5. Exception: In Aliso Beach, specifically, a zone for surfing shall be set up from 12 pm to 6 pm daily through the posting of signs and flags by Marine Safety Department staff or for increased durations as conditions warrant at the determination by Marine Safety Department staff. If a zone for surfing is not set through the posting of signs and flags by Marine Safety Department staff, the surfing area is hereby established at the South end of Aliso Beach from 12pm to 6pm between June fifteenth and September fifteenth.
2. No person shall wade, bathe, or swim between in any surfing area described in paragraph (a)(1) at any times when surfing is permitted in such area unless otherwise authorized therein or such person has in his or her possession and is actually using a surfboard, paddleboard, or other similar device.
3. No person shall engage in the activity of surfing from June fifteenth to September fifteenth outside of the designated surfing area described in paragraph (a)(1) unless the city manager, marine safety chief, police chief, or other employee of the city designated by the city manager to enforce surging regulations and control surfing activities, upon careful evaluation, permits surfing in certain swimming areas as follows through the posting of signs and flags.
i. Whenever surfing or weather conditions make swimming or bathing hazardous in the beach area from a point one hundred fifty feet south of the southerly extension of Brooks Street to a point ninety feet south of the southerly extension of St. Ann's Drive, or
ii. When relatively few swimmers or bathers are present. b) No persons shall operate any vessel within swimming and surfing areas except that vessels, other than motorboats, which have been launched from the beach may proceed directly to and from the beach through said designated areas.
64 64 of 779
c) The launching of any vessels may be prohibited by any police officer or lifeguard at any time it appears to such police officer or lifeguard that such activity would constitute a hazard to persons swimming and surfing in said designated area or to the operators or passengers of said vessels.
§ 18.20.030. Signals.
At any time when surfing is prohibited within a particular area by virtue of the provisions of this chapter, a yellow flag displaying a black ball shall be raised at or near the subject area so as to be readily visible to all persons within said area.
§ 18.20.035. Hazard to others.
No person shall use any surfboard, paddleboard, skim-board, ski, canoe, or other similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, glass, hard plastic, or any other hard substance, at any time in the Pacific Ocean within the city limits in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any other person.
§ 18.20.040. Penalty for violations.
The violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is punishable as a misdemeanor and the revocation of the license, if any, issued to such violator.
Chapter 18.21. SKIN AND SCUBA DIVING
§ 18.21.010. Hazardous skin diving and scuba diving—Discontinuance orders authorized. a) Hazard to Others or Self. No person shall participate in any skin diving or scuba diving activity at any time in the Pacific Ocean within the city in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any other person or to themselves.
b) Authorized Order to Discontinue Skin Diving or Scuba Diving. The city manager, marine safety chief, police chief or their authorized designees, or any officer or employee designated by the city manager to enforce surfing regulations and control skin diving and scuba diving activities, may prohibit skin diving and scuba diving at any time diving conditions become hazardous as a result of storm, congestion of persons, lack of proper equipment (such equipment to include mask, fins, snorkel, buoyancy compensator, and diving partner) or other conditions which cause a present danger to the persons skin diving or scuba diving or to others.
c) No person shall fail, refuse or neglect to stop skin diving or scuba diving activities or to leave the water when ordered to do so by any such employee of the city. § 18.21.015. Equipment precautions.
No person shall enter the public beach or the ocean for the purpose of participating in scuba diving at any time in the Pacific Ocean within the city if that person is carrying a spearhead of a 65 65 of 779
fixed spear which is not covered in such a way as to render it incapable of harming any individual or a spearhead of a detachable spear which is not detached and not in a firing position. § 18.21.020. Scuba and skin diving classes restricted to certain hours.
No person shall conduct any class of instruction in scuba diving or skin diving on public beaches within the City during the following time periods: (a) from June fifteenth to September fifteenth of any year; before seven a.m. or after ten a.m. on any day. § 18.21.025. Penalty for violations.
The violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is punishable as a misdemeanor.
Chapter 18.22. COMMERCIAL STAND-UP PADDLING REGULATION
§ 18.22.010. Commercial Stand-Up Paddling Activity—Special Event Permit required. a) A special event permit is required for any business or person proposing to conduct commercial stand-up paddling activities.
b) All permits will contain, at minimum, the following requirements:
1. all instructors shall maintain basic First Aid and CPR certifications in addition to participation in a mandatory orientation with marine safety on an annual basis;
2. a student-to-instructor ratio of not more than 4:1 shall be maintained;
3. no more than ten persons from any business (including students and instructors) shall be in the water at one time;
4. each business shall utilize a system to allow for identification of permitted instructors through uniformly colored hats associated with the business;
5. a one-time application fee and an annual renewal fee shall be paid in the amounts established by resolution of the city council;
6. all businesses shall maintain liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars per incident, two million dollars in the aggregate;
7. all businesses shall comply with other applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations.
c) The chief of marine safety may require additional permit requirements or modify permit requirements in the interest of public health, safety and general welfare. § 18.22.015. Hazardous commercial stand-up paddling activity—Discontinuance orders authorized.
a) Hazard to Others or Self. No person will conduct commercial stand-up paddling activities at any time in the Pacific Ocean within the city in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any other person or to themselves.
b) Authorized Order to Discontinue Commercial Stand-Up Paddling Activity. The city manager, marine safety chief, police chief or their authorized designees, or any officer or employee designated by the city manager to enforce ocean activity regulations and 66 66 of 779
commercial stand-up paddling activities, may prohibit commercial stand-up paddling activities at any time if surf conditions become hazardous as a result of storm, congestion of persons, lack of proper equipment or other conditions that cause a present danger to the persons engaged in stand-up paddling or to others. No business or person shall fail, refuse or neglect to stop commercial stand-up paddling activities or to leave the water when ordered to do so by any such employee of the city.
§ 18.22.020. Penalty for violations.
The violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is punishable as a misdemeanor. The violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute grounds for revocation of a special event permit issued pursuant to this chapter.
Chapter 18.25. SEAL ROCK
§ 18.25.010. Statement of intent.
a) The city council finds and determines that Seal Rock is a unique natural resource which is used as a habitat by the California sea lion and the brown pelican. b) The council further finds that the presence of people on Seal Rock is disturbing to these rare species of wildlife.
§ 18.25.015. Trespassing on Seal Rock prohibited.
No person shall trespass on that exposed reef, commonly known as Seal Rock, located in the Pacific Ocean along a prolongation of the oceanward terminus of McKnight Drive on a bearing south four degrees zero minutes west at a distance of approximately six hundred feet southerly of the radius point of the cul-de-sac of McKnight Drive.
§ 18.25.020. Signs.
The chief of marine safety shall post appropriate signs regarding Seal Rock to inform the public that trespassing is prohibited and that the wildlife should not be disturbed. § 18.25.025. Penalty.
Any person convicted of violation of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be subject to a penalty fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
Chapter 18.26. STORAGE AND LAUNCHING OF VESSELS
§ 18.26.010. Prohibition against overnight storage of vessels on beaches.
Except as provided in this chapter, it is unlawful for any person to leave, beach, or otherwise store a vessel on any public beach overnight.
67 67 of 779
§ 18.26.015. Exception—Nonmotorized boats of twenty feet or less.
Vessels other than motorboats which measure twenty feet or less in overall length, may be left, beached, or stored overnight on any public beach other than Main Beach Park and Heisler Park. § 18.26.020. Exception—Permit for special event.
The City Manager or designee is authorized to and shall establish rules and regulations for the issuance of special event permits for the overnight storage on public beaches of vessels in connection with special organized recreational boating events. § 18.26.025. Prohibition against launching of motorboats from beaches.
It is unlawful for any person to launch any motorboat from any public beach except at areas designated as launching areas by the city.
§ 18.26.030. Exception—City owned or operated vessels.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to vessels owned, maintained, or operated by the city.
Chapter 18.27. HAZARDOUS OR ENDANGERED AREAS
§ 18.27.010. Climbing or trespassing in hazardous or endangered areas prohibited.
It is unlawful for any person to climb or trespass within designated hazardous or endangered areas within the corporate limits of the city.
§ 18.27.015. Designation of hazardous or endangered areas. a) The hazardous or endangered areas referred to in Section 18.27.010, in which no person shall climb or trespass, are those areas designated as hazardous or endangered by the city police department, with the approval of the city manager. b) Once so designated, such hazardous or endangered areas shall be clearly posted as hazardous or endangered areas within which climbing or trespassing by any person is prohibited.
Chapter 18.28. PARKS
§ 18.28.016. Use of dog parks.
The following regulations shall apply to all city dog parks:
a) Owners and/or handlers are legally responsible for their dogs and any injuries to people or other dogs and/or damage caused by them.
68 68 of 779
b) All dogs must have current licenses and required vaccinations, and be wearing a collar or harness with a visible registration dog tag.
c) Dogs in heat, pregnant, or lactating are not permitted inside the dog park. d) Digging is not permitted anywhere in the park. Owners and/or handlers are responsible to fill any holes dug by their dog.
e) Owners and/or handlers may not bring more than three dogs at any one time to the dog park.
f) Owners and/or handlers must keep close visual contact with their dogs and be aware of their actions at all times. Dog owners and handlers must remain in a "hands free" condition and capable at all times to use both hands to control their dog. g) Commercial dog training is prohibited in city dog parks, unless specifically permitted by the city through the special event permit process.
§ 18.28.018. Baseball at Riddle Field.
a) Riddle Field is intended for youth baseball play.
b) No hitting of baseballs by persons over the age of fourteen is permitted unless for a youth baseball activity permitted through the special event permits process in accordance with Section 18.28.025 and Title 18 of this code.
c) Riddle Baseball Field closes at dusk unless a special event permit for lights has been issued. § 18.28.020. Outdoor athletic contests.
a) The intent of this section is to provide for the integrity of various community sports leagues and sports events by facilitating the harmonious scheduling of their activities. b) Parks may be reserved through the special event permit process for athletic contests, events, or activities, including practice or training sessions, in areas designated for such use. c) Special structures to be used in conjunction with these activities shall be subject to the discretionary review and approval by the city through the special event permit process and may require other entitlements based on the proposed structures. § 18.28.025. Organized play—Special Event Permit required. a) No person shall participate in any organized play on any park, soccer field, baseball field, tennis/pickleball courts, sand volleyball court, pool or other recreational facility owned, operated, or controlled by the city without first receiving a special event permit issued by the city which authorizes the organized play at the particular site. b) In determining whether or not to issue a special event permit, the city manager, or designee, shall consider the following and any other factors he or she deems relevant:
1. The suitability of the particular facility for the proposed play.
2. The effect of the activity on the neighborhood.
3. The limitation on the availability of the facility for spontaneous recreational use by the public caused by the permitted use of the facility. 69 69 of 779
4. Priority shall be given to groups composed of residents of the city. c) The city manager, or designee, may place reasonable conditions on the issuance of a special event permit as he or she deems necessary and proper to protect the public welfare, including, but not limited to:
1. Restrictions on the number, age and other designations of persons who may participate in such permitted play.
2. Restrictions on the season, days of the week and time of day that the particular facility may be used by the permittee.
3. Provisions for the maintenance by the permittee of the sanitation, cleanliness, and appearance of the facility. At times, portable restrooms may be required for special events.
4. Provisions for security and the maintenance of law and order, including compliance with noise, parking, safety, and other appropriate regulations. It is at the city's discretion to require security on the premises to enforce the policies of field use. If security is deemed necessary, it is the responsibility of the user group or individual to obtain security personnel at the user's expense. A letter of confirmation from the security agency must be submitted prior to field approval.
5. Restrictions on the installation of apparatus or modification in any manner, either temporary or permanent, by the permittee to the sports field or adjacent structures.
6. Provisions for the posting liability insurance by the permittee. d) In the event that any of the conditions of the special event permit are violated by the permittee or for other good cause shown, the city may suspend or revoke the special event permit after notice to the permittee.
e) When a special event permit is issued for organized play at a park, soccer field, baseball field, tennis/pickleball court, sand volleyball, pool, or other recreational facility pursuant to this section for use of said facility at a particular time, and that facility is being used by one or more persons who do not hold a special event permit to use the facility at that particular time, the non-permit holders shall immediately vacate the facility upon arrival of the permit holders.
Chapter 18.29. MARINE PROTECTED AREAS
§ 18.29.010. Establishment of marine protected areas.
a) California laws provide for the protection of the marine habitat and biological diversity found in California's ocean waters, including intertidal zones. b) The state of California has established marine protected areas to protect habitat and ecosystems, conserve biological diversity, provide a sanctuary for marine life, enhance recreational and educational opportunities, and provide scientific reference points to assist resource management decisions.
c) Marine protected areas include state marine reserves, state marine parks, and state marine conservation areas.
d) The following areas in the city of Laguna Beach have been designated as marine protected areas in accordance with applicable state laws:
70 70 of 779
1. Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve,
2. Laguna Beach State Marine Conservation Area, and
3. Dana Point State Marine Conservation Area.
§ 18.29.015. Responsibility of marine protection office.
The city's marine safety department shall have and discharge the responsibilities of area manager for all of the marine protected areas located within the city limits. § 18.29.020. Unlawful acts.
No person shall take, possess or disturb specimens of live or dead intertidal marine animal or plant life, or willfully injure, destroy or alter marine intertidal zone habitats. § 18.29.025. Removal of certain materials permitted.
a) The city manager or designee may require a special event permit for scientific research and/or collecting of specific organisms or objects in specific quantities within marine protected areas.
b) Failure to notify the area manager or appropriate city authority of impending research may result in a citation or revocation of research and/or collection privileges.
EXHIBIT B
(Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 6.16.020)
6.16.020 (Dogs on beaches, in parks, and school grounds—When and where prohibited.) a) In addition to the restrictions provided in Section 6.16.120, and except as provided to the contrary in this section, it is unlawful for any dog to be within the following designated beach and park areas within the city, and it is unlawful for any person, firm or corporation owning or having charge of any dog to permit or allow such dog to be within the following beach and park areas, whether or not confined by leash, at the following times:
1. At any and all times within Bluebird Park, and within Boat Canyon Park within June 15th and September 15th of each calendar year;
2. At such times and within those areas of Heisler Park as the city council may from time to time fix and designate by resolution;
3. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this code, no person shall take any dog, whether leased or unleashed, upon any public beach in the city between the hours set by city council resolution nor shall any person owning or having charge, care custody or control of any dog cause, permit or allow such dog to be upon such beach at any time that conflicts with the hours set by city council resolution;
4. At any and all times upon any public school grounds, dogs are prohibited, whether or not confined by leash, unless prior written authorization by school district is obtained;
5. At any and all times in tot lots or play equipment areas in any city park or beach. b) The restrictions and prohibitions of this section and Section 6.16.120, shall not be applicable to dogs while they are enrolled and participating in obedience classes sponsored by the recreation department of the city, or to guide dogs for blind persons. 71 71 of 779
EXHIBIT C
(Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 8.04.010)
8.04.010 (Drinking or possession in public places)
a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this section, no person shall consume any alcoholic beverage on or upon any public place, including any public street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, beach, park or parking lot; provided, however, that:
1. It shall not be a violation of subsection (a) to consume alcoholic beverages with a bona fide meal in any public park, with the exception of Heisler Park, Main Beach Park, Crescent Bay Point Park, and Riddle Field and Park.
2. It shall not be a violation of subsection (a) to consume alcoholic beverages with a bona fide meal:
i. At special event gatherings in Heisler Park, Main Beach Park or Crescent Bay Point Park in accordance with a permit issued by the community services department pursuant to the requirements established by resolution of the city council; or
ii. At city-sponsored performing or cultural arts events in Heisler Park, Main Beach Park, Crescent Bay Point Park or Riddle Field and Park.
3. It shall not be a violation of subsection (a) to consume alcoholic beverages provided by the concessionaire located at Aliso Beach Park within the concession building or delineated patio area, as provided by an agreement with the city. b) Except as otherwise expressly provided by this section, no person shall possess any can, bottle or other receptacle containing any alcoholic beverage that has been opened, or a seal broken, or the contents of which have been partially removed, on or upon any public place, including any public street, right-of-way, sidewalk, alley, beach, park or parking lot. This 72 72 of 779
subsection does not apply when an individual is in possession of any alcoholic beverage container for the purposes of recycling or other related activity. 73 73 of 779
74 of 779
75 of 779
76 of 779
77 of 779
78 of 779
79 of 779
80 of 779
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
CONSENT
13 SUBJECT: SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES
FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYLING COLLECTION SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive a report on the proposed maximum solid waste service rates, including the proposed cartbased pricing structure for multi-family residential properties with two to eight units;
2. Direct the City Manager, or designee, to prepare and distribute all notices required for the proposed rate adjustments and set a public hearing for June 23, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.; and
3. Find the proposed action exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15061 (B)(3) and 15308 or, alternatively, determine that the proposed action is not a “project” under CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On July 11, 2023, the City Council awarded Franchise Agreement No. 23-132 to CR&R for the collection, transportation, processing, diversion, and disposal of municipal solid waste. The eight-year agreement became effective on July 1, 2024, and includes the option for two one-year extensions based on performance standards. Following implementation of the new franchise agreement, the City and CR&R identified service and billing discrepancies affecting certain smaller multi-family properties, including inconsistencies in unit counts, service levels, and cart allocations. These issues, together with feedback from affected property owners, prompted further evaluation of the agreement’s application to multi-family properties with two to eight units.
On January 28, 2025, the City Council approved an amendment to the agreement modifying service and billing options for multi-family properties with two to eight units by allowing those properties to subscribe to residential waste and recycling service rates without requiring a separate cart set for each unit, provided the property continues to have access to landfill, recycling, and organics collection service consistent with Senate Bill 1383. Staff has continued to evaluate the actual service levels being provided at these properties, what services residents are availing themselves to and found that the current per-unit billing structure still could possibly benefit from further refinement. Approximately 858 multi-family properties with two to eight units are currently billed on a per-unit basis, and several property owners have raised concerns that the existing rate structure requires them to pay for more service than they reasonably use.
The Franchise Agreement authorizes annual rate adjustments based on changes in landfill disposal costs and applicable Producer Price Indices for collection and processing services. The proposed solid waste rate adjustments are driven by three factors: implementation of the Waste Infrastructure System Enhancement (WISE) agreement, contractual inflationary adjustments tied to the Finished Goods and Natural Gas Producer Price Indices, and a proposed repricing of multi-family properties with 2 to 8 units from a perunit billing structure to a cart-based billing structure. Staff recommends a cart-based adjustment because it more closely reflects actual service levels, maintains compliance with SB 1383 requirements, and provides 1 of 786
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID
WASTE AND RECYLING COLLECTION SERVICES
April 28, 2026
a fairer rate structure. This reflects the City’s ongoing efforts to consistently review its solid waste rates to ensure that they reflect the on-the-ground reality. This is an ongoing process based on changing behaviors and costs for certain services.
DISCUSSION
Under the current agreement between the City and CR&R, multi-family properties with dwelling units located in a building or complex of eight or fewer units may subscribe to the Residential Rates set forth in the agreement on a per unit basis. Multi-family properties with bin service, multiple days per week collection, and/or nine or more units are subject to billing for services at the (higher) Commercial/Multifamily Maximum Rates.
Approximately 858 multi-family properties with two to eight units are currently being charged for one residential 3-cart set for each dwelling unit, regardless of the actual number of containers onsite. For example, under the current per-unit pricing structure, a two-unit property pays $54.42 per month, calculated as two units multiplied by $27.21 for a 3-cart set with a 95-gal trash cart. A three-unit property pays $81.63 per month, calculated as three units multiplied by $27.21 for that same 3-cart set with a 95-gal trash carts.
In other words, the cost was not connect to the actual number of containers onsite.1 Several affected property owners have contacted the City to express concern that the current rate structure does not accurately reflect the level of service being provided. Based on site visits and evaluations of current service levels, staff found believes that there could be some benefit to tweaking the rates to more accurately reflect actual usage and costs associated with the City’s solid waste services.
In response, CR&R has provided a revised rate proposal that would allow eligible multi-family properties with two to eight units to pay for one base residential 3-cart set, with additional carts billed only as needed at the existing residential extra-cart rates. This cart-based pricing approach more closely aligns billing and actual service levels while maintaining compliance with SB 383 requirements that each property has access to landfill, recycling, and organics collection service. For example, under the proposed cart-based structure, a two-unit property would be assumed to receive one base residential 3-cart set, resulting in an estimated monthly rate of $28.40 rather than the current $54.42. A three-unit property would be assumed to receive one base residential 3-cart set plus two additional landfill (MSW) carts, resulting in an estimated monthly rate of $35.63 rather than the current $81.63. These assumptions are intended to reflect a more typical service level for smaller multi-family properties and form the basis for the estimated cost comparisons shown in Table 1. Actual service levels may vary by site.
Table 1: Estimated Cost Savings for Multi-Family Properties (2-8 Units) with Cart-Based Pricing Property Type Approx.
Properties
Current Rate
(Unit-Based)
Adjusted 2025 Rate
(Cart-Based)
Percent
Reduction
2-Unit Property 551 $54.42 $28.40 -48%
1 However, these properties did receiver additional services such as more bulky item pick-ups, hazardous waste pick-ups, textile recycling pick-ups and access to other City-wide solid-waste events. 2 of 786
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID
WASTE AND RECYLING COLLECTION SERVICES
April 28, 2026
3-Unit Property 165 $81.63 $35.63 -56%
4-Unit Property 71 $108.84 $50.10 -54%
5-Unit Property 34 $136.05 $69.58 -49%
6-Unit Property 17 $163.26 $68.30 -58%
7-Unit Property 12 $190.47 $56.99 -70%
8-Unit Property 8 $217.68 $68.30 -69%
* Current rate based on residential 3-cart set with 95-gallon trash cart.
Impact of Multi-Family Repricing (Adjustments)
The proposed rate configuration would result in an estimated reduction for the multi-family properties with two to eight units, as well as a corresponding reduction in CR&R rate revenue of approximately $27,753 per month. A review of CR&R’s costs to provide the service indicates that the base solid waste and recycling rates for residential and commercial customers would need to increase to account for that reduction in revenue because CR&R’s costs are not decreasing. This adjustment would result in an estimated 4.4% increase for the base residential rate and a 5.2% increase for commercial uses effective July 1, 2026.
The purpose of the re-pricing is to better align rates for multi-family properties with 2-8 units with the actual level of service being provided, rather than continuing a pricing structure that may require some properties to pay for more service than they would likely reasonably use. If one customer type is re-priced downward to better reflect its share of service costs, the remaining cost of the system must still be recovered through the rate structure. See Table 2 for the residential and commercial rate impacts of repricing the multi-family 2–8-unit properties from a per unit pricing system to a cart-based pricing system.
Table 2: Impact of Multi-family Repricing Adjustment on Current Rates Service Bundle Approx.
Customers
Current
2025
Monthly
Rate
Monthly
Rate with MF
Reprice
Rate Change/
Customer/month
%
Change
35-Gallon Cart Set 1,182 $26.69 $27.86 $1.17 4.42%
65-Gallon Cart Set 2,938 $27.00 $28.18 $1.18 4.41%
95-Gallon Cart Set 4,130 $27.21 $28.40 $1.19 4.41%
Commercial Bin
3 Cubic Yard Bin,
1x/week (Refuse)
52 $ 229.42 $241.70 $12.28 5.4%
2026 Rate Adjustment Components
In addition to the proposed multi-family 2–8-unit repricing, residents and businesses in Laguna Beach will 3 of 786
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID
WASTE AND RECYLING COLLECTION SERVICES
April 28, 2026
experience additional rate impacts resulting from two separate contractual drivers: 1) increased landfill disposal costs associated with implementation of the WISE agreement, which was approved by Council at the March 24 council meeting, and 2) annual contractual inflationary adjustments tied to the Finished Goods and Natural Gas Producer Price Indices. Unlike the WISE and PPI adjustments, which are driven by contractual obligations and system cost increases, the multi-family adjustment is discretionary and intended to better align rates with actual service levels for a specific customer class.
Table 3 combines the three rate adjustments that would become effective July 1, 2026, and demonstrates the potential impact on residential and commercial rates. The City is obligated under its agreement with CR&R to incorporate the applicable PPI adjustment. In addition, because the City ratified the WISE agreement on March 24, 2026, and no other disposal facilities with adequate capacity are located within a reasonable proximity, the City has limited discretion with respect to the landfill disposal component. The optional policy question before the City Council is whether to also implement the proposed multi-family repricing adjustment to better align rates for smaller multi-family properties with actual service levels.
Table 3: Residential and Commercial Rate Impact with All Three Adjustments Service Level 2025 Base
Rate
WISE
Impact
PPI
Impact
MF
Reprice
Adjustment
Final
2026
Rate
Total
Change
2025→2026
35-Gallon Cart Set $26.69 $2.27 $1.33 $1.17 $31.47 $4.77 65-Gallon Cart Set $27.00 $2.34 $1.34 $1.18 $31.86 $4.86 95-Gallon Cart Set $27.21 $2.38 $1.35 $1.19 $32.12 $4.92 Commercial
3 Cubic Yard Bin,
1×/Week (Refuse)
$ 229.42 $16.62 $12.90 $12.28 $271.22 $41.80
Comparative Rate Analysis with Other Orange County Cities The City’s residential solid waste rates are approximately at the midpoint Orange County jurisdictions, ranking 16th highest out of 35 cities. The City’s commercial sample rate for one 3-cubic yard bin serviced once per week is comparatively higher and currently ranks 5th highest out of 33 cities with available data.
This reflects the practical realities of providing solid waste service in Laguna Beach, including steep terrain, narrow alleys, constrained access, and heavy seasonal traffic, all of which create a more challenging and costly operating environment.
Based on the comparative analysis (Attachment 1) and assuming other Orange County jurisdictions also experience disposal fee and inflationary increases, Laguna Beach is projected to rank 11th highest for residential rates if the WISE, PPI, and the proposed multi-family repricing adjustments, while the 4 of 786
SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED MAXIMUM RATES FOR SOLID
WASTE AND RECYLING COLLECTION SERVICES
April 28, 2026
commercial sample rate would remain 5th highest countywide.
Proposition 218 Notice and Next Steps
Staff recommends that the City Council set a public hearing for June 23, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. to satisfy the Proposition 218 noticing requirements applicable to the proposed solid waste and recycling rate adjustments. Following Council’s action, notices describing the proposed rates, which are scheduled to become effective on July 1, 2026, would be mailed to affected customers. In accordance with Proposition 218, the rate adjustments may not be imposed if a majority protest is received from noticed ratepayers.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
No General Fund appropriation is requested as part of this action. Solid waste collection, processing, and disposal services are supported through customer rates established under the Franchise Agreement. The WISE-related disposal fee increase and the annual PPI adjustments are pass-through cost components authorized by contract. If the multi-family repricing adjustment is adopted, it will decrease charges to the affected two-to-eight-unit multi-family customer class while redistributing system costs through corresponding residential and commercial base-rate adjustments needed to maintain proportional recovery of reasonable service costs. Franchise fee revenues paid to the City will continue to be based on gross receipts under the Franchise Agreement and will adjust consistent with the adopted rates.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The proposed action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), in that the proposed rate adjustments and related administrative actions are not anticipated to result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. In addition, the proposed action is not a “project” for purposes of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378, because it has no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Orange County Residential and Commercial Rate Comparison Charts (Pgs. 6-7) Submitted By: Mark McAvoy Approved: Gavin Curran, for
Mark McAvoy, Director of Public
Works & Utilities
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Ashley Moran, Sr. PW Analyst/Solid Waste
Coordinator
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
5 of 786
OC Residential Rate Survey – Current FY25-26 Rates (95-Gal 3 Cart Bundle) FY26-27 OC Rate Estimate – Residential + CPI and WISE (95-Gal 3 Cart Bundle) Attachment 1
6 6 of 786
OC Commercial Rate Survey – Current FY25-26 Rates (1) 3-Yard, 1x/week FY26-27 OC Rate Estimate – Commercial (1) 3-Yard, 1x/week +CPI +WISE 7 7 of 786
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
CONSENT
14 SUBJECT: TEMPORARY (2 WEEKS) BIKE PUMP TRACK AT THE COMMUNITY AND
RECREATION CENTER (CRC)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the City Manager to participate in the temporary pump track program in summer 2026 for a period of approximately two weeks at the Community and Recreation Center, to be located on a portion of the grass area near the lower parking lot, including submitting an application for a Temporary Use Permit and executing any necessary rental agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for an amount not to exceed $16,000; and
2. Find the recommended actions are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This report provides an overview of a proposed temporary modular pump track program and recommends that the City Council authorize participation in a two-week installation at the Community & Recreation Center during Summer 2026, to be located on a portion of the grass area adjacent to the lower parking lot.
The estimated cost to participate in the program is not to exceed $16,000 and is anticipated to be funded through existing Recreation Division budget appropriations. The temporary installation would allow the City to evaluate community interest, usage patterns, and operational considerations prior to making any long-term capital investment in a permanent pump track facility. The City Council can also consider purchasing the modular pump track at the conclusion of the rental rotation in summer 2026 and authorize the City Manager to execute any necessary purchase agreements, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for an amount not to exceed $39,000.
DISCUSSION
Background
At the July 22, 2025, City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to investigate a site selection for a pump track, including a feasibility study and site evaluation, and appointed Mayor Pro Tem Jones and Councilmember Rounaghi to continue working on this effort.
On January 12, 2026, the City’s Recreation Committee made a motion to support a pump track in Laguna Beach and specifically to prioritize location on NW edge of the grass field at Moulton Meadows Park while still exploring other potential site options.
Since the January Recreation Committee meeting, the City has hosted a strategic planning meeting to discuss the upcoming goals and priorities. Though the pump track was on that list, it was listed as a low1 of 792 TEMPORARY (2 WEEKS) BIKE PUMP TRACK AT THE COMMUNITY AND RECREATION
CENTER (CRC)
April 28, 2026
priority item. In response to the community enthusiasm for a pump track, however, City staff explored the middle-ground option of a modular, temporary pump track for a limited time period this summer.
Modular, Temporary Pump Track
Through City staff research, City staff learned that, in the summer of 2025, a modular temporary pump track was rented and rotated among several Orange County cities, including Mission Viejo, Irvine, Tustin, Garden Grove, and Huntington Beach on a two week basis for each city; it was purchased by Huntington Beach at the end of the rotation for it to continue rotating the modular temporary pump track through its parks. A modular pump track will return to Orange County again in summer 2026 with Mission Viejo and Fullerton already committed; there is an opportunity for Laguna Beach to participate in this year’s rotating track to see if residents like the amenity and use it as assumed. There are several benefits to a modular, temporary pump track, including that it needs minimal site preparation and only requires a flat surface and the temporary program can gauge community interest without the long-term investment of a permanent track. The cost of participating in the temporary pump track program during the summer of 2026 for a two week period is approximately $16,000. If the City Council approves participation in the temporary pump track program in summer 2026, staff expects continued dialogue with the community and the Recreation Committee after the track’s time in Laguna Beach – what was good about it, what was not, whether it met expectations, and whether it is worth having it as a local amenity anywhere in Laguna Beach. Bringing a temporary pump track does not mean that a permanent one will follow.
City staff has identified two potential options for the modular, temporary pump track: (1) Community & Recreation Center; and (2) Moulton Meadows. Below is a list of the pros and cons for each option and a depiction of where City staff anticipates potential placement:
2 of 792
TEMPORARY (2 WEEKS) BIKE PUMP TRACK AT THE COMMUNITY AND RECREATION
CENTER (CRC)
April 28, 2026
Location Pros Cons
Community &
Recreation Center
City-owned facility has youth-oriented
programming
Limited access without a vehicle would
reduce parking capacity on the lower
lot, and one would need to wait until
EOC construction is complete.
Moulton Meadows
Park
Existing park, adjacent to mountain
biking trails already utilized by the
community, multiple access points,
connects to both Arch Beach Heights
and the TOW neighborhood.
Recreation Committee‘s preferred
location
Group of neighbors concerned about
park impacts
Staff recommends using a small portion of the grass area at the Community and Recreation Center. The grass area is currently used for parking and just a small section could be used for the temporary pump track feature while still providing adequate parking for facility users.
Next Steps
If the City Council authorizes the City to participate in the modular pump track program in summer 2026, staff would apply for a Temporary Use Permit (TUP) from the Planning Commission and, if the TUP is secured, staff will initiate the rental agreement and coordinate with the cities of Mission Viejo and Fullerton to determine the rental dates during summer 2026.
The proposed temporary use is not expected to require a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.0008(A)(6), which exempts a temporary event. The project does not appear to meet the criteria requiring a CDP, as it would not occur on a sandy beach area, as defined.
At the conclusion of the rotation program, the City may have the option to purchase the modular track at a discounted cost of approximately $39,000, subject to future City Council consideration and approval.
Community Outreach
The City installed signs (Attachment 2) in the area around the Community & Recreation Center on March 30, 2026. Informal notices regarding the City Council discussion were also mailed to residents within a 500’ radius of the proposed site. Staff will summarize feedback generated from the notification at the Council meeting, and welcome resident and cyclist input prior to and at that time.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action would include a rental cost of approximately $16,000 that is included in the Recreation Division budget. If Council recommends purchase of the track, the cost would be $39,000 and the Recreation Division has sufficient funds available. 3 of 792
TEMPORARY (2 WEEKS) BIKE PUMP TRACK AT THE COMMUNITY AND RECREATION
CENTER (CRC)
April 28, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 because it consists of minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. Examples include but are not limited to minor temporary use of land having negligible or no permanent effects on the environment, including carnivals, sales of Christmas trees, etc.
Here, the recommended action meets the exemption because it involves the temporary placement of a modular pump track which is similar to the temporary placement of structures for a carnival or Christmas tree lot for a short period of time.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. There will be damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. The project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
Staff will cause the Notice of Exemption (NOE) to be filed with the County Recorder's Office and State Clearinghouse within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Modular Pump Track Design (Pg. 5)
2. Notice in the CRC grass area (Pg. 6)
Submitted By: Alexis Braun Approved: Gavin Curran, for
Alexis Braun, Acting Director of
Transit and Community Services
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Tierney Doran, Recreation Supervisor Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney 4 of 792
601 McKinley, Joplin, MO 64801
Toll-free 877-RAMP-778
Local 417-206-6816
[email protected]
Demo Logistics
City to provide a flat site with reasonable accessibility for a 1-ton truck and 25ft trailer.
For the week the track is set up, the city will need to provide a place for the trailer to be stored. If this is not possible, we need to know asap so we can make plans. Preferably this is behind a fence in a public works yard or at a government building.
The city will provide 1-2 people to help set up and tear down the track. These individuals will be shown how to set up and tear down by our supervisor on site, which will help these individuals to make sure the track is in ridable conditions as needed during the week.
If the track is placed on grass, expect the grass underneath and in the surrounding area to be heavily trampled by the end of the demo.
Moving day will be on Mondays. Expect the track to be torn down that morning and set up in the new location that mid to late afternoon.
Attachment 1
5 5 of 792
505 FOREST AVE. • LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 • TEL (949) 497-3311 • FAX (949) 497-0771 April 22, 2026
COURTESY NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL MEETING
April 28, 2026, at 6:00 p.m.
The Laguna Beach City Council will meet in the City Council Chambers located at 505 Forest Avenue, to consider:
TEMPORARY PUMP TRACK RENTAL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold a public meeting on Tuesday, April 28 2026, to consider a two-week temporary pump track rental to be located on a portion of the field at the Community & Recreation Center.
Comments may be made in person during the meeting and in writing prior to the meeting (when submitted via email). You may submit comments regarding this item by email to [email protected]. Please send your comments to the City no later than noon on April 28, 2026 in order for your comments to be submitted to the members of the City Council to review the comments before the meeting.
Questions may be directed to Tierney Doran, Recreation Supervisor at (949) 497-0788.
Attachment 2
6 6 of 792
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
BUSINESS
15 SUBJECT: APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and file.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On April 20th, the City removed nine Eucalyptus trees from the Forest Avenue Promenade. This was not a routine decision, nor one made without considerable evidence and significant consideration. It followed a tree failure in March, discovery of previously unknown conditions impacting the remaining trees’ health and root structure, two independent arborist reports, and a clear determination that these trees posed an immediate risk of serious injury or death to workers, residents, and visitors. This report explains what we found, why we acted when we did, and what comes next for the Promenade This is an opportunity to discuss the City staff’s determination to direct the immediate removal of nine (9) Eucalyptus trees and their upcoming replacement on the Forest Avenue Promenade.
DISCUSSION
What follows is an updated version (with additional information and photos) of communication from the City Manager to individuals contacting the City about the removal of nine Eucalyptus trees on the Forest Avenue Promenade. It outlines the situation precedent to the removal, as well as some steps following the removal:
Between Saturday evening and Sunday morning of March 21-22 (2026), a mature Eucalyptus tree fell into the Promenade project’s work area. This tree, which showed no signs of failure, thankfully fell at the most opportune time and in the most advantageous way. It fell in the middle of the night when no workers were present on the site and fell inward – away from neighboring businesses and the pedestrian sidewalk. This tree could have easily failed during the day while either workers were present (on site) or members of the public were walking alongside the project site and injured or killed someone and/or caused damage to neighboring structures. Thankfully, no one was hurt and no properties were damaged. Here is what the fallen tree looked like:
1 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
The City has a project arborist (from Dudek) who is present regularly at the Promenade site. The arborists’ role, among other things, includes overseeing designated Tree Protection Zones that prohibit mechanized work around the trees. The failed tree in the photo above was behind the fencing in the Zone.
The failure of this tree left sixteen (16) trees in or related to the project area – mostly Eucalyptus, but a few Ficus, too.
The arborist rapidly began a review and analysis of the fallen tree. The reasons for the tree’s failure appear to be:
2 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
• While the construction of the Project itself had protected all tree roots around the tree via a Tree Protection Zone (w/a snow fence), the removal of the curb and asphalt exposed a root structure that was substandard – including showing evidence of previous damage by other sidewalk projects years ago. • The root structure was impaired by that previous damage, fungal decay (some of the roots were spongy and soft), and a buildup of the soil over time that buried the root flare of the tree (where the root system meets the trunk).
The tree’s failure led the City to ask the arborist to do a new, closer review of the health of each of the eleven (11) trees similarly situated to the fallen tree (i.e., adjacent to a removed curb/sidewalk, with some roots exposed), and each of which were proposed for retention. This additional review included “airspading” of many of the trees’ roots, which enables an arborist to see the root structure without damaging the roots.
Following the air-spading and an analysis of each tree, the arborist’s recommendation to the City was that nine (9) of the eleven (11) similarly-situated trees should be removed – for these reasons, among others:
• Several of the trees were girdled with root guards that are about 20-24” deep and immediately against the trunks – this installation was an unknown condition and would not be recommended today for tree health.
• Several of the trees had impaired root systems squeezed between the two levels of sidewalks (old and new). The buried sidewalk was an unknown condition exposed during the air-spading operation. 3 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
• Numerous trees had roots pruned for sidewalk repair work in past years – the roots here showed signs of decay.
• There is a noticeable absence of structurally significant roots (over 2” – 3” in diameter) among the trees. • Another tree – one of the largest ones adjacent to Tuvalu Home Store – had much of its root structure sitting on a large base of concrete, leaving few to no roots on the side opposite its lean – where one would expect to see roots to pull against the lean to support the tree. And the tree’s roots were girdled by the roots of the Ficus tree that was planted in close proximity. 4 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
Seeking a second opinion, the City asked another arborist (from Monarch) to peer-review Dudek’s work and to include the second arborist’s own site inspections of the trees. Monarch concurred with Dudek – that 9 of the 11 should be removed, and that a total of 7 (of the 16) should be retained subject to further monitoring. The City received this second analysis in writing on Monday afternoon, April 20th.
With the second report in hand, the City had to act quickly. The City cannot be in a position of having safety information concerning a tree and not acting on it, especially given the failure of the similarlysituated tree a month previous. The reasons include worker safety, the safety of patrons visiting stores on and around the Promenade while under construction, and for the ultimate users of the Promenade, which is likely to include 100s of people a day.
While safety in general demands it, the City Attorney’s Office had unique and specific concerns with the liability risks of this particular situation. Reducing risk to 0% is an impossibility and the threat of an incident 5 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
that leads to a lawsuit against the City is always present. However, unique to this situation is whether the City’s insurer1 would even cover the incident in light of the information the City was in receipt of.
Per the General Manager of CIPA, the City’s insurer:
The City was on “Notice” of a dangerous condition when one arborist identified trees should be removed. That notice was further strengthened when two arborists agreed that specific trees should be removed and one tree had already fallen. Failure to remove the trees would have dramatically increased the value of any claim since the City knew of the dangerous condition but did nothing about it. The expectation of any insurance carrier is that immediate action will be taken to eliminate or reduce the exposure of a known hazard. Insurance policies exclude claims that are expected.
Trees falling on people and/or property would have been an expected outcome given the City’s notice of a dangerous condition.
If the City’s insurer were to decline coverage, the City’s potential liability would be enormous.
This is unfortunately not a novel situation for the City’s insurance carrier. In previous years, another member agency of the City’s insurance pool had a Eucalyptus tree fall in a city park that tragically killed the mother of the bride of a wedding party celebrating in that park. During the course of that lawsuit, the plaintiff’s attorneys put on evidence from a tree pathologist that, among other things, the city should have been aware of root rot and decay issues with the tree. This case was settled for approximately $28 million dollars. While the insurance carrier did cover this incident (but, significantly, note the member agency did not have arborist reports prior to the incident regarding the health of the tree, putting the city on notice of the dangerous condition), that was not the end of the story. In that instance, the insurance carrier thereafter reviewed this member agency’s tree removal policy, formally requested recission of the policy, and even suggested possible removal of the member agency from the insurance pool if changes were not made. This member agreed to the request to ensure continuing insurance coverage.
Accordingly, as it pertains to this situation, even if we assume for the sake of argument the City’s insurer would provide coverage (which is not clearly the case here, as noted above) if the trees were left and caused death or damage, it is very likely that the City’s Tree Removal and Planting Policy for Public Trees would become the subject of review by the City‘s insurer. A similar demand of recission or modification of the City’s policy would likely emerge from that review—resulting in substantially less local control over future tree removals—with the City running the risk of being voted out of its insurance pool if the demand was not met.
In accordance with the City’s Tree Removal and Planting Policy for Public Trees, the Director of Public Works & Utilities is generally charged with overseeing the process for removal of public trees. In this case, following the failure of the tree on March 21-22 in the Promenade project area, the City engaged in an 1 The City is a member of the California Insurance Pool Authority (“CIPA”) with numerous other public agencies in order to reduce the costs of insurance as it is spread out amongst multiple agencies – not just the City. 6 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
investigation and robust due diligence process to both evaluate the health of the remaining similarly-situated trees and the protection of the public and/or structures in their immediate vicinity. Over the course of the following weeks, this process included, as discussed above, analysis of the tree that originally failed, a soils report, air spading of the similarly-situated trees’ roots, numerous in-person inspections, an arborist report for all of the similarly-situated trees on Lower Forest Avenue, a second opinion in the form of a peer review and independent inspection of all of the similarly-situated trees on Lower Forest Avenue, and numerous consultations with the arborists, City’s insurer, the City’s contractor and consultants for the Promenade, City Engineer, and City Manager and City Attorney’s Offices. Following the receipt of the second arborist report on April 20, the Public Works Director concurred with the results of that report and determined that nine (9) trees along the Promenade meet the criteria in the aforementioned policy under “Exemptions from the Tree Removal Process” to qualify for immediate removal due to imminent risk to public safety that would put the public and/or structures in immediate danger.
As such, the City directed the immediate removal of the nine trees during the evening of April 20th and early morning hours of April 21st, in order to protect the public safety. Two of the eleven were successfully retained, along with the Ficus trees.
The Promenade’s Future Trees. The project will include the replacement of each of the nine trees. Eight older trees should remain in place. There are expected to be up to 33 trees in the Promenade when complete, depending on stock availability. In anticipation of the previously approved project, the City has had nursery stock growing for nearly a year to populate the Promenade. The intended inventory is now this:
• 10 48” box size Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Polyanthemos); • Six 24” box sized Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus Polyanthemos); • One 120” box sized Southern Live Oak (our selected tree is about 24-26 feet tall right now, growing near Valley Center, CA – see photo) – we are considering increasing this to four 120” box Southern Live Oaks.
7 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
8 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
The City is attempting to identify sourcing for several more 24” box Eucalyptus to replace the tree that fell in March and the others that were removed in April.
Planting – how will it be different? As noted, the new trees will be largely 24” boxes to 48” boxes (with some 120” boxes) and planted according to modern landscaping standards. Which means not over an old sidewalk, not with a buried root collar, not with a confining root guard, with the right soil, with automatic watering, and with wide spaces (and in some instances, Silva Cells) for roots to stabilize without further compaction of the soil.
9 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
One factor in our planting approach is that the soils beneath the failed tree showed high levels of salinity.
The planting plan includes soil remediation, saline leaching, and more to ensure that the soil is proper before planting. Regardless, replacement specimens will need to be able to do well in that soil environment.
Tree Summary. In summary, the table below shows how the Project has changed when the City removed the additional nine Eucalyptus:
New v. Old Trees Existing Prior
to Project Initial Plan
Following
Arborists'
Reports
Trees Removed / Failed 6 16
Trees to be Preserved 18 8
New Trees to be Added 12 25
Total = 24 30 33
10 of 171
APRIL 20TH REMOVAL OF NINE TREES ON THE PROMENADE
April 28, 2026
Concluding Thoughts About this Process and Decision. We got the final arborist’s report on Monday afternoon. When we read it, we confirmed that our concerns around these trees were valid, and that these trees truly did pose a clear and immediate threat. Please know that this was a very difficult decision, but one that the City (including the Public Works Direct, the Mayor, the City Manager, and the City Attorney) made because of the immediate need to protect people's lives.
If we'd delayed, we may have had to shut all of Lower Forest Avenue down—stores, restaurants, sidewalks, maybe even a section of Glenneyre and we still would have had to remove the trees. Delaying would have given us more time to talk to the public — but we would have ended up in the same place, with the very real risk of a catastrophic, and potentially fatal, tree failure.
We're likely just as upset as you are to lose these trees. It helps us emotionally to focus on their replacements.
It’s vital to us to replace the lost trees with large, healthy trees —specimen trees—of the right species in the Promenade. And that they be planted well and carefully, and maintained thoughtfully and diligently.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no environmental impact.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Arborist’s Report (Dudek) (Pgs. 12-111)
2. Arborist’s Report (Monarch) (Pgs. 112-131)
3. Soils Analysis (Pgs. 132-134)
Submitted By: . Approved: .David A Kiff
Dave Kiff, City Manager Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Dave Kiff, City Manager Mark McAvoy, Director of Public Works & Utilities Thomas Perez, City Engineer
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Pat Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
11 of 171
1 Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 06:22
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID U
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Root collar excavation
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
No
Explanation Removed for air spade and project entrance
Site Photos
Attachment 1
12 12 of 171
2 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
13 13 of 171
3 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Ficus roots girdling Eucalyptus trunk and roots Site Photos
14 14 of 171
4 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Ficus root
Site Photos
15 15 of 171
5 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
16 16 of 171
6 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Concrete under tree
Site Photos
17 17 of 171
7 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Concrete under tree
Site Photos
18 18 of 171
8 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Concrete under tree
Site Photos
19 19 of 171
9 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Crew digging out dirt to locate concrete under tree on south side Site Photos
20 20 of 171
10 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
21 21 of 171
11 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
22 22 of 171
12 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Concrete under tree on north side
23 23 of 171
13 Monitoring Notes:
Concrete was exposed under the tree on the north and southwest side. 1-2 roots were discovered on the south side of trunk at about 5- below top of grade. Suspected r
inches found. The tree s visible roots are circling and girdling trunk.
Additionally, ficus roots were found to be girdling trunk. No eucalyptus roots extending towards street were exposed. One large ficus root was exposed. Tree is recommended for removal due to the lack of structural roots observed within the first foot of soil during the air spading and within the excavation limits of the stormwater infrastructure on the west and north side of the tree; the suspected shallow rooting depth, the severe degree of lean; poor health and project impacts. Final grade surrounding the tree is anticipated to be approximately 8 lower than current surface.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 08:21
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID D
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Air spade excavation and hand digging around root collar Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
24 24 of 171
14 Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
25 25 of 171
15 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
26 26 of 171
16 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
27 27 of 171
17 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
28 28 of 171
18 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
29 29 of 171
19 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
30 30 of 171
20 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
31 31 of 171
21 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
32 32 of 171
22 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
33 33 of 171
23 Monitoring Notes:
Tree has large structural roots on the north side that have grown over the root appears to be a severed root on the north side of the tree. An approximately 2 inch root has been severed in the past, and this root is severely decayed; the wood is soft and disintegrating. Tree is recommended for removal due to root guard proximity to trunk, suspected shallow rooting depth, declining health and impacts to roots requiring the removal of 30% of the root volume within the TPZ. The proposed finished grade of the project would be approximately 4 lower than existing.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 08:26
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID G
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Air spade and hand digging excavation around root collar Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
34 34 of 171
24 Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
Photo:
35 35 of 171
25 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
36 36 of 171
26 Photo:
37 37 of 171
28 Photo:
38 38 of 171
30 Photo:
39 39 of 171
31 Photo Location:
Photo Description: Trunk/root collar girdled by old hardscape Site Photos
40 40 of 171
32 Photo:
41 41 of 171
33 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
Tree has root barrier installed 7inches from trunk fully encompassing it. The trunk has been girdled by concrete most of the circumference of the trunk, over 80% of the trunk has been damaged by concrete. No structural roots were exposed. Tree is recommended for removal due to root barrier proximity to trunk, past damaged to lower trunk/root collar and project impacts that will result in the root collar being above grade. The final grade is expected to be 2 lower than existing sidewalk.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 10:44
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID P
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Root collar excavation
42 42 of 171
34 Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
43 43 of 171
35 Photo:
44 44 of 171
37 Photo:
45 45 of 171
38 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
46 46 of 171
39 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
47 47 of 171
40 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
Excavation was conducted via a shovel and with the air spade. Excavation occurred to approximately 20 inches below surface. Tree is fully encompassed by root barrier that is assumed to be 24 inches deep. Drainage pipes were placed on either side of the tree, and the tree has engulfed one of these pipes.
Minimal roots are observed on the outside of the root barrier. These roots are small, from less than half an inch in diameter, up to 1 inch. Roots are observed, though they are assumed to be originating from underneath the root barrier, or somewhere lower than the excavation occurred where the root barrier was broken. Finish grade is anticipated to be 2 inches lower than current. No structural roots would be impacted by this work. This tree is recommended for a removal due to the proximity of the root guard to the trunk, unknown structural root stability and lean.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 12:40
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID E
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
48 48 of 171
41 Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Air spading around root collar
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
49 49 of 171
42 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
50 50 of 171
43 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
51 51 of 171
44 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
52 52 of 171
45 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Second layer on concrete sidewalk below tree Site Photos
53 53 of 171
46 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
54 54 of 171
47 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
55 55 of 171
48 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
56 56 of 171
49 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
57 57 of 171
50 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
58 58 of 171
51 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
59 59 of 171
52 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
60 60 of 171
53 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
61 61 of 171
54 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
62 62 of 171
55 Monitoring Notes:
Original layer of sidewalk beneath the surface level layer of sidewalk found approximately 10 inches below surface. Several larger roots have grown over root barrier. Root barrier was dug out by shovel to a depth of 24 inches. A few small roots under .25 in diameter were observed to be pushing out from below the root barrier. Tons of small fibrous roots growing over the root barrier in between sidewalk layers. Minimal structural roots observed. Two larger roots approximately 2 to 3 inches in diameter are observed on the north side of the tree. Tree is recommended for removal due to the proximity of root barrier to trunk as it encompasses the entire trunk, anticipated construction impacts, and lean. Final grade is anticipated to be 4 lower than existing grade. Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 12:55
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID Alessa
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spade excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Root collar excavation
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
Yes
Was the spill removed and
collected to an appropriate
container for proper disposal?
No
Explanation Open bag on concrete
63 63 of 171
56 Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
Yes
Were the materials removed and
collected to an appropriate
container for proper disposal?
No
Explanation Open bag of concrete
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
64 64 of 171
57 Photo:
65 65 of 171
58 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
66 66 of 171
59 Site Photos
Photo:
67 67 of 171
61 Photo:
68 68 of 171
62 Photo Location:
Photo Description: Damaged and decayed root approximately 2 in diameter Site Photos
69 69 of 171
63 Photo:
70 70 of 171
64 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
Root barrier was found to be fully encompassing tree underneath second layer of sidewalk. Three large structural roots were observed to be growing over the root barrier approximately 2 to 5 inches in diameter. One root appears to have been severed and is rotting out. Drainage pipes have been placed in close proximity to tree, resulting in the tree engulfing one of these pipes. Large roots were observed on the north and west side of tree. Tree is recommended for removal due to root guard installation encompassing trunk, the proximity of the root guard to the trunk, the previously damaged root that is exhibiting signs of decay with no compartmentalization and anticipated project impacts that would result in the removal of 30% of the total root volume in the TPZ. Final grade is anticipated to be 3 lower than existing.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 13:11
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID O
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Root collar excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
Yes
71 71 of 171
65 within the TPZ?
Explanation Root collar excavation
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
72 72 of 171
66 Photo:
73 73 of 171
68 Photo:
74 74 of 171
70 Photo:
75 75 of 171
72 Photo:
76 76 of 171
74 Photo:
77 77 of 171
75 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
Root collar excavation was conducted with shovels to a depth of approximately 13 inches below the surface. This exposed several large structural roots that range from 1 to 15 inches in diameter. The large buttress root measuring 15 inches is on the south side of the tree, extending towards the building. This is at surface level. Root guard was exposed approximately 13 inches below the surface. All of the large structural roots visible are growing over the root barrier.
A drainage pipe was installed on the east side of the tree. The tree trunk is growing into the drainage pipe. The tree is recommended for removal due to anticipated construction impacts requiring more than 30% removal of the root volume within the TPZ. The finish grade is anticipated to be 1 lower than existing.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 3, 2026
Time In 08:55
Time Out 15:30
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID I
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Root collar excavation
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
Yes
78 78 of 171
76 within the TPZ?
Explanation Excavation hand digging
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
No
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
79 79 of 171
77 Photo:
80 80 of 171
78 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
81 81 of 171
79 Site Photos
Photo:
82 82 of 171
81 Photo:
83 83 of 171
83 Photo:
84 84 of 171
85 Photo:
85 85 of 171
86 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
86 86 of 171
87 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
87 87 of 171
88 Photo:
88 88 of 171
89 Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
growing over original sidewalk. (1)
face. Small feeder
roots were collected for pathogen sampling. The tree has been previously been recommended for removal based off of the poor structure, assumed root damage from past infrastructure development and repair, and current impacts to the CRZ. If the City retains this tree, final grade is anticipated to remain the same, and based on the findings of the exploratory excavation the proposed hardscape could be installed without cutting roots 4 or larger within the visible and currently exposed TPZ. Tree remains in poor health and structure and is exhibiting signs of decline similar to the failed Tree J. 89 89 of 171
1 Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 13, 2026
Time In 07:11
Time Out 09:00
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID H
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spading within the tpz. Removal of root mat and soil to expose structural roots and observe grade change on the tree.
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Exposed root and root barrier. Removed mortar and root mat.
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
Yes
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
No
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Rain
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
No
Explanation They were not up for this tree
90 90 of 171
2 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Before air spading
91 91 of 171
3 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Root barrier
92 92 of 171
4 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Roots exposed between sidewalk
93 93 of 171
5 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: On west side of tree, root barrier is girdling the trunk 94 94 of 171
6 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
95 95 of 171
7 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
96 96 of 171
8 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
97 97 of 171
9 Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Monitoring Notes:
Root collar excavation was conducted with hand tools and air spade to a depth of approximately 12 inches below the surface. The second layer of concrete sidewalk was exposed on the east side of the tree. There was approximately 4- 6 between the second layer of sidewalk and the root barrier. This exposed several small feeder roots growing over the root barrier and where the root 98 98 of 171
10 barrier was broken. Also, one larger root that range was approximately 2 inches in diameter was exposed where the root barrier had failed on the south side of the tree. On the west side of the tree the root barrier was in contact with the trunk and the trunk had started to engulf the root barrier. No roots were visible at surface level on west side of tree. The tree is recommended for removal due to proximity of root guard to trunk, damage to trunk from root guard. The finish grade is anticipated to be 1 than existing.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 13, 2026
Time In 07:17
Time Out 09:04
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID Q
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spading
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
within the TPZ?
No
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
NA
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
NA
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Rain
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
99 99 of 171
11 Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
100
100 of 171
12 Photo Description: Before root inspection
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
101
101 of 171
13 Photo Description: Level of depth to roots.
Site Photos
Photo:
Photo Location:
102
102 of 171
14 Photo Description:
Site Photos
Photo:
103
103 of 171
15 Photo Location:
Photo Description: Confirmed root level is the same as current level. Grade change minimal.
Monitoring Notes:
Root collar excavation was conducted with hand tools and air spade to a depth of approximately 3 inches below the surface. This exposed root barrier that goes on all sides of the tree. Several small feeder roots were exposed where the root collar was found. The original potting soil was discovered near the suspected root collar. No structural roots were visible 3 below the surface, which is within the majority of the grading limits for hardscape installation. The finish grade is anticipated to remain the same. The tree is a candidate for preservation based off of the minimal anticipated project impacts and fair health with the assumption that no further damage occur to the tree from project related activities and the root barrier can be removed from 3 sides of the tree.
Arboricultural Construction Monitoring Form
Date of Report April 13, 2026
Time In 07:19
Time Out 09:00
Monitor Name [email protected]
Tree ID S
Description of Activities Performed
or Observed
Air spading. Exposure of root collar.
Daily Site Observation Checklist
Were there any grade changes or
excavations deeper than 4 inches
Yes
104
104 of 171
16 within the TPZ?
Explanation Removal of dirt to expose root collar and root guard.
Were all trenches, holes and steepwalled excavations within the TPZ inspected before backfilling?
NA
Did any spills of hazardous
materials occur within the TPZ? If
yes, then further question, was the
spill removed and collected to an
appropriate container for proper
disposal?
NA
Were any materials staged within
the TPZ?
No
Was there any pooling or ponding
water present in the TPZ?
Yes
Explanation Rain
Were any roots 4" or larger cut
within the TPZ?
No
Were TPZs installed according to
City Guidelines?
Yes
Explanation
Site Photos
105
105 of 171
17 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Before air spading
Site Photos
106
106 of 171
18 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Site Photos
107
107 of 171
19 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Root exposed
Site Photos
108
108 of 171
20 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description: Trunk flare after mortar removal.
Site Photos
109
109 of 171
21 Photo:
Photo Location:
Photo Description:
Roots exposed.
110
110 of 171
22 Monitoring Notes:
Root collar excavation was conducted with hand tools and air spade to a depth of approximately 10 inches below the surface. Additionally, bricks and mortar were removed that were previously abutting the trunk during the excavation work. No root barrier was found. Several small feeder roots were exposed where the root collar is suspected. Two roots on the east side of the tree were exposed under the mortar approximately 3-4 below soil surface that range between 2-3 . These roots rather than extending out horizontally from the tree trunk have begun to circle the trunk. Mortar remains stuck in the trunk of the tree on multiple locations. The finish grade is anticipated to be 1.5 inches lower than existing. The tree has been previously been recommended for removal based off of the poor structure, lean, assumed root damage from past infrastructure development and repair, and current impacts to the CRZ. If the City retains this tree, based on the findings of the exploratory excavation the proposed hardscape could be installed without removing roots larger than 4 in diameter.
111
111 of 171
1 OFFICE: 949.207.3770
WWW.MONARCHU.COM
34237 VIA SANTA ROSA
DANA POINT, CA 92624
Mr. Tom Perez April 20, 2026
City of Laguna Beach, Public Works Department
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Re: Summary of Peer Review and Visual Assessment of Trees within Forest Avenue Promenade Project Dear Mr. Perez,
Monarch Environmental was recently asked to review arborist reports and related documents associated with the City’s Forest Avenue Promenade project, which were prepared by the consulting arborist team at Dudek, who are providing ongoing oversight of all trees that may be impacted by the project.
After reviewing their reports and conducting my own level two assessment of the subject trees on April 15th and 16th, I have concluded that the Dudek team’s findings and recommendations are sound and reasonable. Of the sixteen trees within and immediately adjacent to the project boundaries, nine are being recommended for removal and seven should be preserved and monitored closely.
I have prepared a brief summary of some of their findings below, which were reviewed along with provided photos and substantiated through my own on-site observations. In the following pages you will also find a map, data table, and photos of each tree.
Observations
• During recent air spading and excavation activities, it became apparent that the subject trees were planted on top of existing concrete, one of two buried layers that were not previously known • Root barriers had been installed just inches from the trunks of most trees, impeding the growth and spread of structurally vital roots
• There was a notable absence of structurally significant roots (over 2 – 3 inches in diameter) observed during air spading
• Numerous trees were found to have had roots pruned for sidewalk repair work in past years; most of these roots now appear to be decaying
• Anticipated construction impacts will require the removal of structurally significant roots in 30% of the critical root zone for at least three of the subject trees • In recent weeks a tree within the project confines (Tree J, not included in the current tree map) failed due to apparent existing root and / or root collar decay, completely unrelated to current construction activities
112
112 of 171
2 OFFICE: 949.207.3770
WWW.MONARCHU.COM
34237 VIA SANTA ROSA
DANA POINT, CA 92624
Notes
• SWA’s Comprehensive Tree Plan exhibit, dated April 8, 2026, has the location and status / disposition of trees A and B interchanged – Tree A was removed, but Tree B is still in place and recommended for preservation
• Trees listed as Eucalyptus grandis are actually Eucalyptus rudis, both of which go by the common name “Flooded Gum.” For the purposes of this assessment, I have used the provided nomenclature in my own notes in order to maintain consistency with past reports and the City’s GIS tree inventory
Summary
Due to the existing structural concerns observed during air spading along with anticipated constructionrelated impacts that the trees would sustain in the coming weeks, I advise City staff to proceed with Dudek’s recommendations:
• Remove trees D, E, G, H, (Alessa – no ID on map), O, P, S and U • Preserve and closely monitor trees B, I, K, M, N, Q, and W In the coming days I will prepare a more detailed peer review of the Dudek team’s reports, but please consider this document a conclusive recommendation for the management of the trees within the Promenade project footprint. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or concerns you may have, and thank you for allowing us to assist with this assignment. Thank you for your time.
Evin Lambert
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist 667
ISA Arborist WE – 9776A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
CA Pest Control Adviser 123990
113
113 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
Existing Trees 4.16.26
B
E
U W
D
G
Alessa S
H
I
Q
P
O
K
N
M
B
E
U W
D
G
Alessa S
H
I
Q
P
O
K
N
M
Map data ©2026 Imagery ©2026 Airbus Report a map error
Legend (16)
Removal (9)
Preserve and Mon... (7)
114
114 of 171
City of Laguna Beach
Forest Avenue Promenade - Tree Recommendations
Tag # Botanical Height DBH Health Objective Note
B Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 26 80% - Good Preserve and Monitor Outside of construction fence; preserve and monitor.
SWA exhibit shows that this tree was removed.
D Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 13 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
E Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 12 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
G Eucalyptus polyanthemos 25 12 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
H Eucalyptus grandis 28 18 40% - Poor Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
I Eucalyptus grandis 30 16 40% - Poor Preserve and Monitor Preserve and monitor; may continue to decline in health due to existing condition and expected stress from
construction activities.
K Ficus rubiginosa 30 38 80% - Good Preserve and Monitor Minimal construction impacts anticipated; preserve and
monitor
M Eucalyptus grandis 28 23 60% - Fair Preserve and Monitor Outside of construction fence; preserve and monitor N Ficus rubiginosa 23 28 60% - Fair Preserve and Monitor Minimal construction impacts anticipated; preserve and
monitor
Alessa Eucalyptus polyanthemos 25 16 80% - Good Removal Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
O Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 15 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
P Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 14 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
Q Eucalyptus polyanthemos 25 6 80% - Good Preserve and Monitor Small tree planted in 2018; minimal impacts expected,
preserve and monitor
S Eucalyptus grandis 30 16 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
U Eucalyptus polyanthemos 50 32 60% - Fair Removal
Recommend removal due to current structural concerns
as well as anticipated construction impacts
W Eucalyptus polyanthemos 30 15 80% - Good Preserve and Monitor Outside of construction fence; preserve and monitor 115
115 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 20, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 2
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# B
Height: 30 DBH: 25.9
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
SWA exhibit shows that this tree was
removed
April 20, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 2
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# B
Height: 30 DBH: 25.9
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
SWA exhibit shows that this tree was
removed
April 20, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 2
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# B
Height: 30 DBH: 25.9
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
SWA exhibit shows that this tree was
removed
116
116 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 4
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# D
Height: 30 DBH: 12.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 4
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# D
Height: 30 DBH: 12.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 4
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# D
Height: 30 DBH: 12.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
117
117 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 5
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# E
Height: 30 DBH: 12.3
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 5
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# E
Height: 30 DBH: 12.3
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 5
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# E
Height: 30 DBH: 12.3
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
118
118 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 7
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# G
Height: 25 DBH: 12.2
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 7
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# G
Height: 25 DBH: 12.2
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 7
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# G
Height: 25 DBH: 12.2
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
119
119 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 8
Rose Gum Tag# H
Height: 28 DBH: 17.6
Health: 40% - Poor
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 8
Rose Gum Tag# H
Height: 28 DBH: 17.6
Health: 40% - Poor
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 8
Rose Gum Tag# H
Height: 28 DBH: 17.6
Health: 40% - Poor
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
120
120 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 9
Rose Gum Tag# I
Height: 30 DBH: 16
Health: 40% - Poor
Preserve and Monitor
Preserve and monitor; may continue
to decline in health due to existing
condition and expected stress from
construction activities.
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 9
Rose Gum Tag# I
Height: 30 DBH: 16
Health: 40% - Poor
Preserve and Monitor
Preserve and monitor; may continue
to decline in health due to existing
condition and expected stress from
construction activities.
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 9
Rose Gum Tag# I
Height: 30 DBH: 16
Health: 40% - Poor
Preserve and Monitor
Preserve and monitor; may continue
to decline in health due to existing
condition and expected stress from
construction activities.
121
121 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 9
Rose Gum Tag# I
Height: 30 DBH: 16
Health: 40% - Poor
Preserve and Monitor
Preserve and monitor; may continue
to decline in health due to existing
condition and expected stress from
construction activities.
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 10
Rusty Fig Tag# K
Height: 30 DBH: 37.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 10
Rusty Fig Tag# K
Height: 30 DBH: 37.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
122
122 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 10
Rusty Fig Tag# K
Height: 30 DBH: 37.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 10
Rusty Fig Tag# K
Height: 30 DBH: 37.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 12
Rose Gum Tag# M
Height: 28 DBH: 22.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
123
123 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 12
Rose Gum Tag# M
Height: 28 DBH: 22.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 13
Rusty Fig Tag# N
Height: 23 DBH: 27.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 13
Rusty Fig Tag# N
Height: 23 DBH: 27.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
124
124 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Ficus rubiginosa ID# 13
Rusty Fig Tag# N
Height: 23 DBH: 27.6
Health: 60% - Fair
Preserve and Monitor
Minimal construction impacts
anticipated; preserve and monitor
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 14
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# Ale…
Height: 25 DBH: 16.2
Health: 80% - Good
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
Alessa - No ID on Map
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 14
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# Ale…
Height: 25 DBH: 16.2
Health: 80% - Good
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
Alessa - No ID on Map
125
125 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 14
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# Ale…
Height: 25 DBH: 16.2
Health: 80% - Good
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
Alessa - No ID on Map
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 15
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# O
Height: 30 DBH: 15.4
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 15
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# O
Height: 30 DBH: 15.4
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
126
126 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 16
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# P
Height: 30 DBH: 13.9
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
Uneven weight distribution
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 16
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# P
Height: 30 DBH: 13.9
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
Uneven weight distribution
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 17
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# Q
Height: 25 DBH: 5.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Small tree planted in 2018; minimal
impacts expected, preserve and
monitor
127
127 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 17
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# Q
Height: 25 DBH: 5.5
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Small tree planted in 2018; minimal
impacts expected, preserve and
monitor
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 18
Rose Gum Tag# S
Height: 30 DBH: 16.4
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 18
Rose Gum Tag# S
Height: 30 DBH: 16.4
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
128
128 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus grandis ID# 18
Rose Gum Tag# S
Height: 30 DBH: 16.4
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 20
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# U
Height: 50 DBH: 32.1
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 20
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# U
Height: 50 DBH: 32.1
Health: 60% - Fair
Removal
Recommend removal due to current
structural concerns as well as
anticipated construction impacts
129
129 of 171
City of Laguna Beach - Forest Ave Promenade
April 16, 2026
Eucalyptus polyanthe… ID# 22
Silver Dollar Gum Tag# W
Height: 30 DBH: 15.4
Health: 80% - Good
Preserve and Monitor
Outside of construction fence;
preserve and monitor
130
130 of 171
20 OFFICE: 949.207.3770
WWW.MONARCHU.COM
34237 VIA SANTA ROSA
DANA POINT, CA 92624
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITING CONDITIONS
While trees vary in their tolerance to changed conditions, disruption in any form of the environment to which the trees have grown accustomed may result in adverse reaction. Human activity among and near trees is inherently contrary to tree welfare and there are inherent risks associated. The following are limitations to this report:
• All information presented herein covers only the trees examined at the area of inspection, and reflects the conditions observed of said trees at the time of inspection. • Observations were performed visually without probing, dissecting, coring, or exaction, unless noted above, and in no way shall the observer be held responsible for any defects that could have only been discovered by performing said services in specific area(s) where a defect was located. • No guarantee or warranty is made, expressed or implied, that defects of the trees inspected may not arise in the future.
• No assurance can be offered that if the recommendations and precautionary measures are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be attained. • No responsibility is assumed for the methods used by any person or company executing the recommendations provided in this report.
• The information provided herein represents an opinion, and in no way is the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion, or value based on the retainer.
• This report is proprietary to Monarch Environmental, Inc., and may not be reproduced in whole or part without written consent. This report has been prepared exclusively for use of the parties to which it has been submitted.
• Should any part of this report be altered, damaged, corrupted, or lost the entire evaluation shall be invalid.
• This report shall remain valid for a period of one year from date of delivery, unless stated otherwise.
Attachment 2
131
131 of 171
4741 East Hunter Ave., Ste. A Anaheim CA 92807
(714) 282‐8777 (714) 282‐8575 fax
www.waypointanalytical.com
Anaheim Office
Lab No: 26-091-0028
April 10, 2026
Dudek Environmental Consultants
31878 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, Ca 92675
Attn: Katrina
Project: Laguna Beach – Forest Avenue
Attached are the results of the analysis performed on a soil sample that was collected by the client from the abovementioned project site and received by our laboratory on April 1, 2026. The sample was analyzed for nutrient levels and troubleshooting purposes. It was noted that an established Eucalyptus polyanthemos, which recently fell over, is the primary concern
Analytical Results and Comments
In terms of fertility, nitrogen is very low. Sulfate is well supplied. Iron and manganese are low while copper is below optimum. The remaining nutrients are well supplied.
Salinity (ECe) is high, as indicated by the 6.7 dS/m reading. The greatest contributor to salinity is the abundance of soluble sodium, which measures 41.7 meq/L. Soluble calcium, magnesium, and sulfate are also major contributors to salinity but are not as hazardous as other salts such as sodium.
The sodium present is poorly balanced by soluble calcium and magnesium with regard to soil structure and water infiltration as indicated by the high sodium adsorption ratio value (SAR) of 9.87. Boron is safe and sufficient for plant nutrition.
The reaction of the sample is slightly alkaline with a pH of 7.2. Free lime is favorably low. These are within the range preferred by most plants, including Eucalyptus polyanthemos Recommendations
The soluble salts detected in this sample exceed the tolerance threshold for many landscape plants and is likely a factor in the decline of the tree. Additional abiotic factors that may impact plant performance include cultural and environmental conditions such as soil compaction and moisture extremes, as well as biotic factors, including plant pathogens and/or insect activity.
Plant pathology testing is currently in progress to determine whether plant pathogens are contributing to the observed symptoms. The results of this diagnostic testing will be reported separately upon completion. 132
132 of 171
4741 East Hunter Ave., Ste. A Anaheim CA 92807
(714) 282‐8777 (714) 282‐8575 fax
www.waypointanalytical.com
Dudek Environmental Consultants
April 10, 2026
If additional plant material is planned for the site, it is advised to bring salinity and sodium down in the root zone via thorough irrigations with good quality water. Additional plants should be tolerant to elevated sodium and salinity. In order to reduce these values in the root zone, several thorough irrigations low in salts should be applied to accomplish some leaching. We estimate that a total of 3.5 inches of good quality water needs to move through the soil profile to reduce the salinity to a more favorable range of 3.5 dS/m in the surface 12 inches. A high level of gypsum (calcium sulfate) is already present in the soil, so additional gypsum should not be applied at this time. Drainage must be sufficient for leaching to be effective. Water should be applied in such a manner as to ensure uniform water movement into the soil and to limit runoff. The soil should be allowed to dry slightly between irrigations to avoid creating anaerobic soil conditions and/or an environment that favors disease. The source of salinity should be identified and reduced. Consider submitting a water sample for agricultural suitability.
If we can be of any further assistance, please feel free to contact us.
Matt Schwebel, CCA
(714)-552-5228
[email protected]
133
133 of 171
Sample Id : Eucalyptus Poly Soil
SOIL ANALYSIS
Send To: Project :
Dudek Environmental Consultants
31878 Camino Capistrano
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Laguna Beach - Forest Avenue
26-091-0028
05425
04/06/2026
04/01/2026
1 of 1
25499
Report No :
Cust No :
Date Printed :
Date Received :
Page :
Lab Number :
EXTRACTABLE NUTRIENTS
NH4-N
Total
Exchangeable
Cations(TEC)
Very Low Low Medium Optimum Very High
142
Sufficiency SOIL TEST RATINGS
Factor NO3-N
129 meq/kg
4 ppm
2 ppm 1181
1134
0.2 1.5
1.3 ppm
ppm
33 200
ppm6
30.0 meq/L 10.0 1606
0.42 ppm 1.4 1134
Result
Available-N
Phosphorus (P) - Olsen
Potassium (K)
Boron (B) - sat. ext.
Sulfate - sat. ext.
Exch Aluminum
Iron (Fe) 12 ppm 0.2 331
Manganese (Mn) 1.4 ppm 0.1 189
Zinc (Zn) 5.8 ppm 0.9 1040
Copper (Cu) 0.6 ppm 0.4 614
Magnesium - sat. ext. 12.7 meq/L
Magnesium (Mg) 367 ppm 1.3 1134
Calcium - sat. ext. 23.0 meq/L
Calcium (Ca) 1780 ppm 0.9 1087
Potassium - sat. ext. 0.9 meq/L
Cu, Zn, Mn and Fe were analyzed by DTPA extract.
Weight Percent of Sample Passing 2mm Screen
Half Sat
PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS
18 %
Gravel Sand
Coarse
5-12
Fine
2-5
Very Coarse
1-2
Coarse
0.5-1
Med. to Very Fine
0.05-0.5
Organic
Matter
Silt
.002-.05
Clay
0-.002
USDA Soil
Classification
Moderately
Alkaline
Strongly
Acidic
Moderately
Acidic
Slightly
Acidic
Slightly
Alkaline
Strongly
Alkaline
Low
Neutral
1319
Qualitative
Lime Result
pH 7.2 s.u.
SATURATION EXTRACT - PLANT SUITABILITY
Effect on Plant Growth
Only Tolerant
Crops Satisfactory
Few Crops
Survive
Result
dS/m
ppm
meq/L
Boron (B)
Sodium Adsorption
Ratio (SAR) *
Salinity (ECe)
Sodium (Na)
Chloride (Cl)
Carbonate (CO3)
Bicarbonate (HCO3)
Fluoride (F)
6.7 9.87
0.42 41.7
1252
1041
256
1477
Many Crops
Restricted Negligible Sensitive CropsRestricted
* Structure and water infiltration of mineral soils potentially adversely affected at SAR values higher than 6.
Test
Test
Test
Graphical interpretation is a general guide. Optimum levels will vary by crop and objectives.
Attachment 3
134
134 of 171
135 of 171
136 of 171
137 of 171
138 of 171
139 of 171
140 of 171
141 of 171
142 of 171
143 of 171
144 of 171
145 of 171
146 of 171
147 of 171
148 of 171
149 of 171
150 of 171
151 of 171
152 of 171
153 of 171
154 of 171
155 of 171
156 of 171
157 of 171
158 of 171
159 of 171
160 of 171
161 of 171
162 of 171
163 of 171
164 of 171
165 of 171
166 of 171
167 of 171
168 of 171
169 of 171
170 of 171
171 of 171
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
NON APPEAL
16 SUBJECT: CONTINUANCE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADOPTION OF THE MASTER
FEE SCHEDULE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing to the May 12, 2026, City Council meeting; and
2. Find that the action to continue the public hearing is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The new Master Fee Schedule reflects revised fees, cost recovery measures, applies an annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment, and consolidates all approved fees into one reference document to enhance transparency.
To continue the public hearing without re-sending public hearing notices, staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to May 12, 2026. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time.
The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no environmental impact.
Submitted By: .Michelle Bannigan Approved: Gavin Curran, for Dave Kiff Michelle Bannigan, Director of
Administrative Services
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By:
Dante Chegini, Administrative Analyst
1 of 1
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
NON APPEAL
17 SUBJECT: FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458 REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Open the public hearing and receive a report regarding a possible City Charter; and
2. Provide direction to staff regarding next steps, including on whether to schedule a second public hearing on the draft City Charter, in compliance with Government Code § 34458.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
At the City Council's January 30, 2026, Strategic Planning session, the City Council discussed briefly whether the City should move from being a general law city to a charter city. The City Attorney's Office prepared a memorandum (attached as Attachment 1) that generally outlines the steps in this process, as well as some of the pros and cons associated with general law and charter cities. At the City Council’s February 10, 2026, meeting, the City Council received a report on the City Charter discussion and directed staff to return at a future date with a more robust discussion on certain more discrete topics and possible options for a City Charter.
In summary, general law cities, like the City of Laguna Beach (“City”), must follow the State of California's (“State”) laws regarding city operations. Charter cities, however, can carve out certain types of functions, programs, and processes and make them unique to their community. These can include service delivery methods, procurement methods, and election-related processes. However, certain areas of law like Brown Act compliance, conflict-of-interest laws, and streets and sidewalks would remain governed by State law.
As the City Manager has previously discussed, becoming a charter city could enable more cost savings and efficiencies in delivering City services. For example, only charter cities can contract out parking ticket enforcement, due to existing State law. The City Manager also has discussed different models of providing certain maintenance services, which could increase flexibility and cost savings via a mix of City staffdelivered maintenance and contracted maintenance.
Pursuant to Government Code section 34458, the consideration of a city charter has a unique, statutorily prescribed procedure that must be undertaken before the charter can be considered for placement on the ballot. More specifically, unlike other ballot measures, a city charter must go through a dual public hearing process, with specific noticing requirements and the hearings being held at least 30 days apart.1 To ensure compliance with this process in the event the City Council ultimately determines to consider a city charter for placement on the ballot, and given the upcoming November 2026 election, this item is the first of those public hearings. This hearing was duly noticed. The City Council may hold additional meetings on this topic, as it desires.
1 The formal process to adopt a charter involves extensive public input, as described in Attachment 1. 1 of 32
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458
REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
April 28, 2026
Topics for the City Council to consider at this hearing are (1) whether to continue with the City Charter process as well as (2) the substance of the draft City Charter (attached as Attachment 2), which reflects the Council’s direction at its February 10, 2026 meeting relating to topics to be included in the charter. The draft is intended to be, as directed, a minimal, streamlined charter while simultaneously ensuring it properly reserves certain powers for the City moving forward.
DISCUSSION
Under California law, municipalities may be organized under one of two legal structures: general law or charter law. General law cities, such as the City currently, derive their authority primarily from State statutes. Charter cities, by contrast, derive certain powers from a locally adopted charter pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Although both types of cities perform the same basic municipal functions, their differing sources of powers create meaningful implications for the scope and limits of their municipal authority. A more robust discussion and explanation of the distinctions between each form of municipal organization is found in Attachment 1.
Varying Formats of City Charters
In review of the various charters adopted by other jurisdictions, there is a range of detail and complexity in each charter. Some are dozens of pages long with detailed processes and substantive law on various topics.
Others are more “bare bones” or limited with the local jurisdiction stating they are a charter city, reserving certain topics as “municipal affairs,” and then relying upon the normal ordinance adoption process to substantively regulate these municipal affairs. Many charters are also in between the two ends of the spectrum. There are pros and cons to both the “expansive” and “limited” approaches.
The detailed, expansive city charter approach makes clear to the electorate exactly what process and law will govern these municipal affairs. However, because they are formally approved by the voters via the charter adoption process, the only way these can be modified is via a charter amendment at a subsequent election. This makes changes more cumbersome. On the other hand, detailing numerous topics is more protective of that specific policy decision than an ordinance adopted post charter adoption, as discussed below. Typically, these types of charters are a result of a very lengthy, debated process where on the numerous policy decisions to be included in the charter, as once adopted, any change requires voter approval at a subsequent election. It should be noted that due to time constraints on the process with the impending November 2026 election, a detailed and substantive charter with a variety of policy decisions implemented is likely not feasible at this time.
The limited approach provides for more flexibility as the substantive processes and policies not expressly enshrined in the charter can be changed by future City Council’s via the standard ordinance or resolution process—and not by the electorate.
Based on prior Council feedback, the City is currently advancing with the “in between” approach, although it leans more heavily towards a limited charter, with a handful of policies being expressly enshrined in the proposed City Charter (as detailed further below) and the remainder being deferred to the reservation of the City’s municipal power authority in the Charter.
2 of 32
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458
REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
April 28, 2026
The attached draft City Charter (Attachment 2) is close to the minimal amount of substance that City staff would recommend. While other jurisdictions may have even shorter charters, Attachment 2 expressly refers to the topics and areas that the City Council has expressed a desire to regulate by charter (see topics below).3 As drafted, the details of such regulation for those topics will be adopted via future legislative action such as ordinances or resolutions. For example, if the City desires to contract out parking enforcement services (assuming the City Charter is presented to and adopted by the voters), the City Council will need to subsequently adopt a resolution or ordinance allowing for such parking enforcement to be done via contract; if the City Council did not take such subsequent legislative action, then the City would remain governed by the State laws on that topic, like a general law city. This approach (i.e., expressly naming the municipal affair topics in the charter) is the most legally protective of the City in ensuring those topics may be regulated under the home rule doctrine, while also allowing this and future City Councils the ability to modify or remove the City-specific regulation on these topics, but as determined by each City Council.
In addition, for additional municipal affair topics that are not expressly referenced in the draft City Charter, if adopted, this and future City Councils may nevertheless regulate those topics as a charter city by legislative act through the Charter’s retention of its municipal affairs power (Proposed Charter § 200) as exercised by the City Council (Proposed Charter § 201). This approach allows for flexibility for future charter regulation on different and emerging topics.
Further, the draft City Charter explicitly incorporates existing ordinances, resolutions, and policies adopted by the City Council (Proposed Charter Article III). These were all adopted pursuant to the City’s status as a general law city and future City Council action will be required in the event of adoption of a City Charter to modify or remove these prior City enactments.
Topics Proposed to be Regulated by the Laguna Beach City Charter Based on discussion and direction at the February 10, 2026, City Council meeting, the following sections describe three specific areas of municipal affairs4 that could be exercised by the City of Laguna Beach upon adoption of a City Charter:
• Public Works Contracting
• Contracting for Certain Services
• Fine Amounts for Administrative Citations
3 Note that the draft Charter does still include reference to certain topics—specifically, the City’s form of government (Proposed Charter § 400), terms for Councilmembers (Proposed Charter § 401), and elections (Proposed Charter Article V)—to memorialize in the City Charter that these topics will continue to function as they currently do. In other words, this offers assurances that a future City Council will not seek to make changes to these topics by relying on the general “municipal powers” provision, without voter approval.
4 In addition to these three topics, the City Council comments also indicated retaining express reference to the Public Financing (Proposed Charter § 205), Reductions (Proposed Charter § 206), and Mandates (Proposed Charter § 207) topics. 3 of 32
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458
REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
April 28, 2026
Public Works (Proposed Charter § 204)
Under the Public Contract Code, general law cities are generally required to award public works contracts to the lowest responsible bidder that submits a responsive bid. While the City retains some discretion in evaluating the bid for responsive and the contractor qualifications for responsibility, the lowest-bid framework can present constraints on the City's ability to rely upon other criteria that may result in a more qualified contractor, albeit one that may be slightly more expensive. Further, there are certain due process requirements for determining a bidder not responsible and notice requirements for a non-responsive bid.
Notably, the City has recently adopted the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCA). This is a voluntary program that the City availed itself of that establishes standardized cost accounting and different bidding procedures for certain public works projects. Specifically, it establishes three levels of projects. The lowest level can be performed by City staff or negotiated contract without formal bidding. The second level may be awarded through an informal bidding process using a pre-qualified contractor list, rather than the formal competitive bidding process required under the Public Contract Code.
Anything above this second threshold amount is subject to the standard formal bidding process of the Public Contract Code, referenced above.
As it pertains to a possible charter, public contracting is recognized as a municipal affair for charter cities.
Pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 1100.7, charter cities may be exempt from state competitive bidding statutes, provided the city charter or a local ordinance expressly exempts the city and the subject matter of the bid constitutes a municipal affair. This would allow the City to:
• Establish its own bid evaluation criteria that may include price, qualifications, safety record, local workforce requirements, and other factors deemed in the public interest; • Adopt a best-value procurement framework for public works projects; • Streamline contracting processes for projects below thresholds to be established locally; and • Negotiate design-build, construction manager at-risk, or other alternative delivery methods without being constrained by state procurement timelines.
Still, if the City’s voters were to ultimately adopt a city charter, even if the City Council then legislatively adopted separate processes for its public works contracting, the City would still need to provide some level of due process to bidders to ensure a fair and equitable application of any rules that the City may adopt.
That is, the City must nevertheless set rules for the bid and award, and it cannot award public works contracts on a case-by-case basis without prescribing rules and guardrails. However, to reiterate, a Cityspecific process could be designed to be more flexible than the somewhat rigid requirement of Public Contract Code requirement to award to the lowest responsible bidder that submits a responsive bid.
Contracting for Municipal Services – Emphasis on Parking Enforcement (Proposed Charter § 208) The California Vehicle Code and other state authority place restrictions on the ability of general law cities to contract with a private third-party vendor to issue parking citations. These same limitations do not apply to charter cities and, should the City adopt a charter, it would be able to comfortably contract with a third4 of 32 FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458
REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
April 28, 2026
party vendor for parking enforcement if the City Council so desired. Currently, the City relies upon sworn LBPD officers and non-sworn LBPD employees for these functions, which limits staffing flexibility and may increase costs compared to models where a third-party vendor is involved.
A model that involves a third-party vendor may result in an incentive-based structure where the third party is compensated based on the number of parking citations issued. Thus, with a dedicated third-party vendor solely responsible for parking enforcement, it is likely the number of parking citations would increase. The City could set up a parking enforcement program where this third-party is only deployed in certain areas of the City or certain times. However, a third-party vendor would likely be desirous of maximum opportunity to make the contract with the City more financially feasible/beneficial.
Parking enforcement is not the only municipal service that could be addressed via contract services by a charter city. However, there are certain labor requirements and issues regarding existing MOUs with the various City employee labor groups that must be addressed prior to implementing many such contracting services.
Administrative Citations (Proposed Charter § 202)
The Government Code has a few sections addressing administrative citations and fine amounts. (See Government Code sections 36900 & 53069.4.) These sections do set maximum fine amounts for an administrative citation for LBMC violations that would otherwise be an infraction. However, there is some grey area in the law regarding whether there is a cap on administrative citation fines for LBMC violations that would otherwise be a misdemeanor.
For charter cities, an administrative citation fine amount is a municipal affair and the only limit on the fine amount associated with an administrative citation would be any maximum limit set by the charter, other City legislative action, and constitutional concerns (i.e., Excessive Fines Clause of the U.S. Constitution).
While the City has some legal arguments – and some general law cities also assess fines in excess of the amounts listed in the Government Code for administrative citations for violations that would otherwise be a misdemeanor – a City Charter that reserves the administrative citation fine amount as a municipal affair is the most legally protective in allowing the City to set fine amounts for administrative citations that do not run afoul of constitutional restrictions. Therefore, if a City Charter reserving its municipal affairs power over administrative citations was adopted, the City would be in the strongest position possible– following adoption by the City Council of a resolution or ordinance specifying the amounts – to commence imposing greater fines as an enforcement tool for some of the issues in the City that are often more difficult to deter.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The financial impact of a City Chater is somewhat dependent on the policy decisions made by the City Council regarding the various subjects contemplated by this staff report and any other policy decisions the City Council may make. Certain decisions, such as possible contract parking enforcement, could provide additional revenues to the City based on a future contract should a City Charter be adopted. 5 of 32
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34458
REGARDING A POTENTIAL CITY CHARTER
April 28, 2026
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action consists of organizational or administrative activities of the City that will not result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and therefore does not constitute a "project" within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. (Public Resources Code Section 21065; CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).)
ATTACHMENTS
1. January 30, 2026 Memorandum from the City Attorney’s Office (Pgs. 7-12)
2. Draft City Charter (Pgs. 13-20)
Submitted By: Megan Garibaldi Approved: Gavin Curran, for Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Pat Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
6 of 32
To: Honorable Mayor Orgill and City Council Members
From: Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
Date: January 30, 2026 (Strategic Planning Meeting)
Re: General Law vs. Charter Cities – A High-Level Overview of Municipal Authority
Under California law, municipalities may be organized under one of two legal structures:
general law or charter law.
1 General law cities, such as the City of Laguna Beach (“City”) currently, derive their authority primarily from State of California (“State”) statutes. Charter cities, by contrast, derive certain powers from a locally-adopted charter pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution. Although both types of cities perform the same basic municipal functions, their differing sources of powers create meaningful implications for the scope and limits of their municipal authority.
This memo is intended to provide a high-level overview of the frameworks of general law and charter cities, as well as briefly describing some of the legal and practical consequences of each form of municipal organization.
I. Two Paths to Governance: General Law vs. Charter Cities A. General Law Cities
Like the majority of cities in California, the City is currently governed as a general law city. As such, the City is bound by the laws of the State, regardless of the subject matter of those laws. In other words, whether a State law relates to issues that are purely local (i.e., “municipal affairs”) or issues that affect the entire State (i.e., “matters of statewide concern”), the City must comply with the State law.2
General law cities derive their police power from the California 1 General law cities are organized under the general law of the State of California (Gov. Code § 34102), while charter cities are organized under a charter (Gov. Code, § 34101). These are each more briefly described below. 2 As discussed more below, the term “municipal affair” (as used in this context) originates from the California Constitution, while the term “matters of statewide concern” is not found directly in the Constitution but emerged from the case law interpreting it. (See, e.g., California Fed. Savings & Loan Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1 (hereinafter “Cal. Fed.”).) As one might imagine, there has been (and will continue to be) much debate in determining what is a “municipal affair” and what is “a matter of statewide concern.” Attachment 1
7 7 of 32
constitution3
and their other municipal authority from State statutes, and they may exercise this power and authority subject to the limitations and preemptive effect of State law.
B. Charter Cities
In California, a municipality’s ability to operate as a charter city derives from the California Constitution. “Charter cities are specifically authorized by our state Constitution to govern themselves, free of state legislative intrusion, as to the matters deemed municipal affairs.”4 In particular, amongst other provisions, the California Constitution provides in pertinent part as follows:
For its own government, a … city may adopt a charter by majority vote of its electors voting on the question. …. The provisions of a charter are the law of the State and have the force and effect of legislative enactments. 5 …
It shall be competent in any city charter to provide that the city governed thereunder may make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs, subject only to restrictions and limitations provided in their several charters and in respect to other matters they shall be subject to general laws. City charters adopted pursuant to this Constitution shall supersede any existing charter, and with respect to municipal affairs shall supersede all laws inconsistent therewith.
6 This constitutional framework is commonly referred to as the “home rule” doctrine. The principle of “home rule” is simply that a city is best positioned to regulate its own local affairs (or, as the California Constitution says, “municipal affairs”), while the State retains control over matters of statewide concern.
This distinction is the core practical benefit to charter status: in matters that are purely municipal, charter cities enjoy the power of self-determination, meaning that a city’s local laws prevail over inconsistent State laws addressing the same subject.7 3 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 7 [“A … city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.”]. 4 State Building & Construction Trades Council of California v. City of Vista (2012) 54 Cal.4th 547, 555 (hereinafter, “City of Vista”).
5 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 3(a).
6 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5(a) [emph. added].
7 Although beyond the scope of this high-level memo, the issue is more nuanced than generally summarized here. The California Supreme Court has explained that whether a subject is a “matter of statewide concern” is “only one side of the coin of home rule” and one step in a four-part constitutional analysis. (Cal. Fed., supra, 54 Cal.3d at 13.) 8 8 of 32
II. Defining the Line: Municipal Affairs vs. Matters of Statewide Concern If the central purpose of being a charter city is to have control over municipal affairs, the critical question is then: What is a municipal affair, and what is a matter of statewide concern? While the term municipal affair appears in the Constitution, it is not defined there, and the law does not otherwise provide a clear brightline definition or definitive and conclusive list of categories. Indeed, determining whether something qualifies as a municipal affair is not always clear. As the California Supreme Court has explained:
[T]he question whether in a particular case the home rule provisions of the California Constitution bar the application of state law to charter cities turns ultimately on the meaning and scope of the state law in question and the relevant state constitutional provisions. . . . The decision as to what areas of governance are municipal concerns and what are statewide concerns is ultimately a legal one.8 The legal question as to whether something qualifies as a municipal affair or a matter of statewide concern is evaluated through a four-part test developed by the California Supreme Court.9
All of that is to say, the determination of whether a matter is a municipal affair or statewide concern requires case-by-case judicial analysis. Notwithstanding there is not a finite list of municipal affairs (or, conversely, a finite list of matters of statewide concern), the California Constitution summarizes four broad categories of municipal affairs and, through the evolution of California case law, there is a non-exhaustive list of what is today considered a municipal affair and what is considered a statewide concern, which is detailed more below.
Whereas Article XI, section 5, subdivision (a), of the California Constitution, quoted above, articulates the general principle of self-governance, subdivision (b) sets out the nonexclusive list of the four ‘core’ categories that are, by definition, municipal affairs. Those are regulation of:
1. “city police force”;
2. “subgovernment in all or part of a city”;
3. “conduct of city elections”; and
4. “the manner in which . . . municipal officers [are] elected.”10 Beyond this list, it is up to the courts to determine what is and is not a municipal affair.
Over the last decade, there has been a winnowing of the municipal affairs category as the matters of statewide concern have expanded. Notably, for example, charter cities used to be able to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements and similarly had near plenary authority over local land use (although affordable housing has been considered a matter of statewide concern for 8 City of Vista, supra, 54 Cal.4th at 558.
9 Cal. Fed., supra, 54 Cal.3d 1. Analyzing this four-part test and its application to various topics is beyond the scope of this memo.
10 Cal. Const., Art. XI, § 5(b).
9 9 of 32
decades).11 Local control over those issues has significantly narrowed through court and legislative actions.12
Below is a non-exhaustive list of some general topics that impact municipalities, and how they are generally categorized. Note these are high-level categorizations and there is nuance to each of them, which may result in differing characterization on an as-applied basis (in other words, a lot of this can result in an answer of “it depends” based on what is being proposed).
Municipal Affairs Statewide Concern
City Police authority and force
Traffic control; streets and sidewalks;
vehicle regulation (e.g., registration of
vehicles)
Legislative authority (e.g., how ordinances
and resolutions are adopted, etc.)
Tort claims against public agencies
Municipal elections13 Prevailing wage law14
Governmental organization; qualifications
and compensation of local officials (e.g., a
city can set its own qualification
requirements so long as does not violate the
U.S. Constitution)
Most housing laws15
11 AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. Bonta (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 73 [“the subissue of ensuring affordable housing has been a matter of statewide concern for nearly six decades”]. 12 See, e.g., SB 7 (2014), which effectively forces California charter cities to apply State prevailing wage laws to public projects by withholding State funding for construction projects from cities that continue to exempt themselves from prevailing wage requirements; The Kennedy Com. v. Superior Court (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 385, which confirmed that State Housing Element Law did not infringe on home rule authority. 13 While a charter city, for example, does not need to comply with the timelines of the Elections Code, practically, if it is consolidating elections with the county elections, the city will still be bound by the county’s deadlines which often mirror the Elections Code.
14 As referenced above, a charter city may opt out of State prevailing wage law, but it must forego its State funding. 15 See, e.g., fns. 11 & 12.
10 10 of 32
Municipal Affairs Statewide Concern
Certain taxation matters (e.g., Real Property
Transfer Tax)16
Public Records Act, Brown Act, Political
Reform Act
Certain personnel matters17 School systems
Contractual services18
Public Contracting19
Penalties and cost recovery for violations of
local law
III. Claiming Home Rule: The Charter Adoption Process
To become a charter city, a city must adopt a charter by a majority vote of its electorate.
If the goal is for the City to place this question before the voters as soon as possible, the earliest it could do so here is November of 2026. The most expeditious approach to doing so would be for the City Council, on its own motion, to draft a charter and vote to place it on the ballot.
Unlike other ballot measures, a city charter requires additional steps for which the City must comply before placing it on the ballot—most notably, multiple public hearings. To help guide the consideration of this effort for the immediate feature, below is a draft timeline for a November 2026 ballot measure. This timeline is tentative as, amongst other things, the County Registrar has not yet released its own deadlines for submittals.
16 State law (Proposition 62) generally prohibits cities from enacting new or additional Real Property Transfer Taxes (“RPTT”). However, California courts have held that Proposition 62’s limitation does not apply to charter cities and therefore, a charter city may enact a RPTT at a higher rate than the State’s rate, subject to voter approval. Notably, the home rule doctrine does not, however, overrule the procedural requirements of enacting local taxes. 17 Important limitations apply here, including but not limited to, for example, the procedures of certain labor laws, such as the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, still apply to charter cities. 18 General law cities derive their contacting authority, both explicitly and implicitly, from the Government Code. A city charter, by comparison, can specify its own contracting rules. 19 Can be exempt from complying with bidding statutes provided the city charter or ordinance exempts the city from such statutes, and the subject matter of the bid constitutes a municipal affair. (Pub. Cont. Code § 1100.7.) 11 11 of 32
City Charter Ballot Measure
Draft Timeline (Dates Are Approximate and Subject to Change) Action Deadline Notes
Election Day Tuesday, November 3, 2026
ROV Deadline to
Submit All Election
Documents
Friday, August 7, 2026 88 days prior to Election*
last day (“l/d”) to
submit Rebuttal
Arguments
Monday, August 3, 2026
10 days after publishing of Direct
Arguments
l/d to submit Direct
Arguments and
Impartial Analysis
Friday, July 24, 2026 Set by Resolution
l/d to vote to submit
Measure to Voters Tuesday, July 14, 2026 At least 21 days of Second Public Hearing l/d to conduct
Second Public
Hearing
Tuesday, June 23, 2026 At least 30 days after First Public Hearing
l/d to Notice Second
Public Hearing Tuesday, June 2, 2026 At least 21 days prior to Second Hearing l/d to conduct First
Public Hearing Tuesday, May 12, 2026
l/d to Notice First
Public Hearing Tuesday, April 21, 2026 At least 21 days prior to Second Hearing Draft ballot
measure February through April, 2026
12 12 of 32
CHARTER PROPOSAL/MEASURE “___”
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DO HEREBY ADOPT A CITY CHARTER FOR THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Text of Charter Proposal. Subject to the approval of a majority of the voters of the City of Laguna Beach at the scheduled election so designated by City Council resolution placing the proposal on the ballot for such election, the voters of the City of Laguna Beach hereby adopt a City Charter to read as follows:
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH CHARTER
PREAMBLE
We the people of the City of Laguna Beach declare our intent to restore to our community the historic principles of self-governance inherent in the doctrine of home-rule. Sincerely committed to the belief that local government has the closest affinity to the people governed, and firm in the conviction that the economic and fiscal independence of our local government will promote the health, safety and welfare of all the citizens of this City, we do hereby exercise the express right granted by the Constitution of the State of California to enact and adopt this Charter for the City of Laguna Beach.
ARTICLE I
NAME AND BOUNDARIES
100. Name and Boundaries
The municipal corporation now existing and known as the City of Laguna Beach, hereafter referred to as "the City," shall remain and continue to be a municipal body corporate and politic, as at present, in name, in fact, and in law.
The boundaries of the City shall be as established at the time this Charter takes effect, or as they may be changed thereafter in the manner authorized by law.
Attachment 2
13 13 of 32
ARTICLE II
POWERS OF THE CITY
200. Exercise of Constitutional Power over Municipal Affairs.
The City of Laguna Beach adopts this Charter to exercise all Constitutional powers conferred on charter cities under Article XI sections 3 and 5 of the California Constitution. The City shall have full power and authority to adopt, make, exercise and enforce all legislation, laws, and regulations and to take all actions relating to municipal affairs, without limitation, subject only to such limitations and restrictions as may be provided in this Charter and the Constitution of the State of California. The enumeration in this Charter of any power, duty or procedure shall not be held to be exclusive of, or any limitation or restriction upon, this general grant of power and the City shall have the power and authority to adopt, make, exercise and enforce all legislation, laws and regulations and to take all actions and to exercise any and all rights, powers, and privileges heretofore or hereafter established, granted or prescribed by any law of the State of California or by any other lawful authority.
Without limiting in any manner the foregoing power and authority, each of the powers, rights, and responsibilities described in this Charter is hereby declared to be a municipal affair, the performance of which is unique to the benefit and welfare of the citizens of the City of Laguna Beach. In the event of a conflict between this Charter or the City’s Municipal Code and the provisions of the general law of the State of California, the provisions of this Charter or the Code shall govern.
201. Powers Vested in the City Council.
All powers of the City shall be vested in the City Council except as otherwise provided in this Charter.
202. Ordinances; Violation; Penalty.
The City Council shall by ordinance determine whether a violation of any ordinance of the City or a provision of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code shall constitute a misdemeanor or an infraction and shall be punishable as provided by State law for violation of ordinances of cities. Further, the City Council shall set by ordinance or resolution, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code provisions that are subject to administrative citations and the corresponding fine amounts for administrative citations. 14 14 of 32
203. Intergovernmental Relations.
The City may exercise any of its powers or perform any of its functions jointly, or in cooperation, by contract or otherwise, with any one or more cities, counties, states, or civil divisions or agencies thereof, or the United States or any agency thereof.
204. Public Works.
The City shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations to regulate all aspects of the bidding, award and performance of any public works contract, including, but not limited to, the compensation rates to be paid for the performance of such work.
205. Public Financing.
The City shall have the power to establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations related to any public financing, including, but not limited to, the power to levy and collect taxes sufficient to pay the interest and principal of the bonded indebtedness of the City and to set a cap on the total amount of indebtedness evidence by general obligation bonds that the City may incur. 206. Reductions Prohibited.
Any revenues raised and collected by the City shall not be subject to subtraction, retention, attachment, withdrawal or any other form of involuntary reduction by any other level of government.
207. Mandates Limited.
No person, whether elected, appointed, or employed, acting on behalf of the City, shall be required to perform any function which is mandated by any other level of government, unless and until funds sufficient for the performance of such function are provided by said mandating authority. 208. Contracting for Work.
The City, based upon a finding that the work can more economically or feasibly be performed, may contract for the performance of work, both special and general, consistent with applicable City criteria for contract procurement. This includes, but is not limited to, contracting for parking enforcement and parking citation review.
ARTICLE III
SUCCESSION
15 15 of 32
300. Rights and Liabilities.
The City shall remain vested with and continue to have, hold, and enjoy all property, rights of property, and rights of action of every nature and description now pertaining to this municipality, and is hereby declared to be the successor of same. It shall be subject to all the obligations, contracts, liabilities, debts, and duties that now exist against or with the City.
301. Ordinances, Codes, and Other Regulations.
All ordinances, codes, resolutions, regulations, rules, and portions thereof, in force at the time this Charter takes effect, and not in conflict or inconsistent herewith, shall continue in force until repealed, amended, changed, or superseded in the manner provided by this Charter and any other applicable laws.
302. Pending Actions And Proceedings.
No action or proceeding, civil or criminal, pending at the time this Charter takes effect, brought by or against the City or any officer, office, or department thereof, shall be affected or abated by the adoption of this Charter, or by anything herein contained.
303. Rights of Officers and Employees Preserved.
Nothing in this Charter contained, unless otherwise specifically provided herein, shall affect or impair the merit system, pension, or retirement rights or privileges of officers or employees of the City, or of any office, department or agency thereof, existing at the time this Charter takes effect. Subject to the provisions of this Charter, the present officers and employees of the City shall continue to perform the duties of their respective offices and employment without interruption and for the compensation provided by the existing ordinances, resolutions, rules, or laws, and under the same conditions until the election, appointment, or hiring and qualification of their successors and subject to such removal and control as provided herein or by applicable law.
304. Continuance of Contracts and Public Improvements.
All contracts entered into by the City or for its benefit prior to the effective date of this Charter and then in effect, shall continue in full force and effect according to their terms. Public improvements for which proceedings have been instituted under laws existing at the time this Charter takes effect, in the discretion of the Council, may be carried to completion as nearly as practicable in accordance 16 16 of 32
with the provisions of such existing laws or may be continued or perfected under this Charter.
ARTICLE IV
FORM OF GOVERNMENT
400. Form of Government.
The form of government shall be that commonly known as the Council-Manager form of government. The City Council, consisting of five councilmembers elected for four year staggered terms, in the manner in effect when this Charter was adopted, shall establish the policy of the City and the City Manager shall carry out that policy. Each Councilmember in office at the time this Charter takes effect shall continue in office until the end of the term for which they were elected or appointed.
401. City Council.
A. The elective officers of the City Council shall consist of five City Councilmembers elected at large, as regulated by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapters 2.04 and 1.08, or any successor ordinance duly adopted in accordance with applicable law. The term of each office shall be for four years. Each City Councilmember, upon qualification, shall serve during said term until the term of the successor to such office commences.
B. The five Councilmembers of the City Council in office at the time this Charter, or amendment thereto, takes effect shall continue in office representing the City until their respective successor's term commences and the successor has qualified.
C. Neither Council nor any of its members shall interfere with the execution by the City Manager of the City Manager’s powers and duties, or order, directly or indirectly, the appointment by the City Manager or by any of the department officers in the administrative service of the City, of any person to an office or employment or their removal therefrom, as set forth in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.08, or any successor ordinance duly adopted in accordance with applicable law. Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service under the City Manager solely through the City Manager, and neither the Council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the City Manager, either publicly or privately.
ARTICLE V
17 17 of 32
ELECTIONS
500. General Municipal Elections.
General municipal elections for the election of officers of the City and for such other purposes as the City Council may prescribe shall be held in the City on the same date and at the same time as the Statewide General Election, in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code section
1.08.010.
501. Procedure for Holding Elections.
Except as otherwise provided in this Charter and except as may otherwise be provided by ordinance enacted by the Council and not inconsistent with the provisions of this Charter, all municipal elections shall be held, canvassed, conducted and otherwise governed by State law.
ARTICLE VI
INTERPRETATION AND AMENDMENT
600. Construction and Interpretation.
The language contained in this Charter is intended to be permissive rather than exclusive or limiting and shall be liberally and broadly construed in favor of the exercise by the City of its power to govern with respect to any matter which is a municipal affair.
601. Effective Date of Charter/Amendment.
This Charter shall take effect upon its approval by a majority of the City of Laguna Beach voters voting at an election scheduled for that purpose and by the Secretary of State of the State of California. Any amendment to this Charter shall be effective when approved by a majority of the City of Laguna Beach voters voting at an election scheduled for that purpose and has been accepted and filed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Section 34460.
ARTICLE VII
MISCELLANEOUS
700. Definitions.
18 18 of 32
Unless the provision or the context otherwise requires, as used in this Charter:
a. "City" is the City of Laguna Beach and "department," "board," "commission," "agency," "officer," or "employee," is a department, board, commission, agency, officer or employee as the case may be, of the City of Laguna Beach.
b. "County" is the County of Orange.
c. "Shall" is mandatory, and "may" is permissive.
d. "State" is the State of California.
e. "State Constitution" is the Constitution of the State of California. f. "Voter" is a registered voter.
For purposes of interpretation, the masculine, feminine, or neuter gender, and the singular or plural number shall be deemed to include the others whenever the context so indicates.
701. Violations.
The violation of any provision of this Charter shall be a misdemeanor and shall be punishable per State law.
702. Validity/Severability.
If any provision of this Charter or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Charter, and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected thereby.
SECTION 2. Approval, Filing and Recordation of Charter Proposal. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34460, if approved by a majority of voters, the Mayor and City Clerk shall certify, authenticate, and attest to the passage of this Charter Proposal. The City Clerk shall also (i) record one copy of this Charter Proposal with the Orange County Recorder’s Office, (ii) file one copy in the City’s archives, and (iii) file one copy with the California Secretary of State. Each copy recorded with the County Recorder and filed in the City’s archives shall also be filed with the following documents:
A. Certified copies of all publications and notices required of the City by State law in connection with the calling of an election to propose the Charter Proposal. 19 19 of 32
B. Certified copies of any arguments for or against the Charter Proposal that were mailed to voters pursuant to California Elections Code Sections 9281 et. seq.
C. A certified abstract of the vote at the election at which the Charter Proposal was approved by the voters.
SECTION 3. Ratification and Effective Date. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 34459, this Charter Proposal shall be deemed ratified if approved by a majority of the eligible voters of the City of Laguna Beach voting at the General Municipal Election of November 3, 2026. However, this Charter Proposal shall not take effect until it has been accepted and filed by the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code Section 34460.
SECTION 4. Severability. If any provision of this Charter Proposal or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the Charter Proposal and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Charter Proposal was PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the People of the City of Laguna Beach on the 3rd day of November, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
City of Laguna Beach
Attest:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney
20 20 of 32
21 of 32
22 of 32
23 of 32
24 of 32
25 of 32
26 of 32
27 of 32
28 of 32
29 of 32
30 of 32
31 of 32
STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
APPEALS
A
SUBJECT: 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, VEHICULAR ACCESS,
SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, AND WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE,
AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3) RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Continue to conduct the public hearing that was opened at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15303 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883 FOR DEMOLITION
OF THE EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE, VEHICULAR ACCESS, SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884 FOR NON-EXEMPT
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COASTAL ZONE, AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR A WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 30801 DRIFTWOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303,” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owner, Amir and Susan Loloi1 (“Applicant”), of 30801 Driftwood Drive (the “Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit (“REP”) 25-1885 for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping as well as a walkway in the public right of way in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. Design review is required for the demolition, new structure, vehicular access, skylights, 1 The Project’s agents are Raha Talebi, Paul Vantieghem, and Steve Kawaratani, who are within the definition of Applicant. 1 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040(B)(1). A coastal development permit is required for the non-exempt development in the coastal zone for the above-described improvements pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008(A)(1)(c). A revocable encroachment permit is required for a walkway within the public right-of-way pursuant to LBMC Section 11.50.030.
On November 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the project that consisted of the demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping, as well as a walkway within the public right-of-way (the “Project”). After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence from staff, the Applicant, and members of the public, and upon review of the staff recommendation for approval, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the Project, subject to the conditions of approval set forth in the resolution and an additional condition requiring that the eave on the north side be reduced so as not to encroach into the side yard setback, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (the “Board Approval”). (The November 13, 2025 Board-adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Staff Report, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 4 through 9, respectively.) On December 1, 2025, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Anthony and Roberta Speranzo (“Appellants”) of 21562 Ocean Vista Drive and 30782 Driftwood Drive, respectively, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). (Attachment 2.) The Appeal notes the following reasons for the appeal, as summarized by staff:
1. The Board failed to properly apply the City’s view equity standards and design guidelines, resulting in blockage of primary ocean and horizon views from neighboring properties; deviation from hillside stepping patterns; increases in mass and bulk beyond what is necessary; and elimination of view corridors that could have been preserved through feasible design modifications.
2. The Project causes disproportionate harm to adjacent properties by prioritizing the Applicant’s design preferences over the equitable distribution of views, resulting in significant view loss and visual impacts to neighboring residences.
3. The Board failed to consider a recorded view easement benefiting the Applicant’s property, resulting in an inequitable outcome where neighbors’ primary views are compromised despite the Applicant’s permanently protected views.
4. The Project is inconsistent with the established neighborhood character, which the Appellants describe as consisting of terraced lots and low-profile structures designed to balance views among properties.
5. The Appellants allege procedural deficiencies in the design review process, including a lack of meaningful engagement with neighbors and insufficient opportunity to review and discuss design changes prior to approval.
6. The Appellants assert errors in the hearing record, including statements by Board members minimizing view impacts that Appellants claim are contradicted by photographic evidence and 2 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
testimony. Appellants also assert that feasible design alternatives to reduce impacts were acknowledged but not considered, and fire risk associated with certain design features, were not adequately evaluated by the Board.
LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3). The appeal hearing was previously continued from the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting to this April 28, 2026 City Council meeting.
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.3 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) Further, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.”
1. Coastal Development Permit, Revocable Encroachment Permit, and CEQA LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a coastal development permit, revocable encroachment permit, and CEQA. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the Board was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented.
In its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-1884 and REP 25-1885 and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Board. The Applicant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. 3 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) 3 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
2. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for City Council requests for review of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 25-1883, which was approved 5-0, the City Council shall not conduct a de novo hearing. Rather, the City Council shall consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 25-1883, subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 5 in such event, remand is not required.
3. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board Approval, and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Board approval and finding the approval of the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15303, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval; 5 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the Board or Planning Commission for further consideration. 4 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Board Approval and denying the Project; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, and REP 25-1885 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
DISCUSSION
The Board held one public hearing on November 13, 2025, and adopted a Resolution conditionally approving the Project. A summary of the public hearing is set forth below.7 A. November 13, 2025 Board Hearing
1. Staff Report
The Project is located on the west side of Driftwood Drive, east of Coast Highway. The site consists of a 7,804-square-foot rectangular shaped lot with an average lot width of 71.87 feet, an average lot depth of 108.32 feet, and an average lot slope of 3%. The existing site is developed with a single-family dwelling and attached two-car garage, which were constructed in 1953 under Orange County jurisdiction. Neither the original home nor any subsequent improvements have undergone discretionary design review. All existing improvements on the site will be demolished in conjunction with this Project. The neighborhood consists of single-family residences.
Figure 1: Aerial View and Street Frontage of Project Site 7 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence. 5 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 2: Proposed Street-Facing Rendering of the Project
2. Staff Presentation
Staff provided an overview of the Project, which involves the demolition of the existing one-story home and construction of a new, one-story single-family residence. The presentation included site plans showing the lot layout, street frontage, vehicular access, garage placement, and proposed changes to driveways and walkways. Small circular skylights, grading exceeding 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint, and landscaping were also highlighted. Renderings and materials were presented, including street views and perspectives from the existing home, along with proposed colors and finishes. Staff noted public comments regarding view and privacy concerns, with general support for maintaining a one-story design.
3. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
Board Member Ex Parte Disclosure Transcript
Page Nos.
Imer Bauta Visited the site with Steve Kawaratani. p. 1 of 18 MJ Coveny Visited the site and met with Steve Kawaratani, the neighbors across the street, Appellants Speranzos, and the neighbors next door. p. 1 of 18
Jessica Gannon Visited the site with Armando, Tony and Bobby across the street, and immediately next door at 21562 Ocean Vista.
p. 1 of 18
Thomas Gibbs Visited the site with Mr. Kawaratani, spoke with Marcus Imhof, and met with Appellants Speranzos, Appellants Brodts, and Armando Baez. p. 1 of 18
Louis Weil Visted with Steve Kawaratani, Tony and Bobby across the street, Henry and Joyce, and Armando.
p. 1 of 18
4. Applicant Presentation
Mr. Vantieghem and Ms. Talebi, the Project architects, both provided comments during the Applicant presentation. The Applicant presented the design of the proposed one-story single-family home, emphasizing compliance with the City’s Design Guidelines and sensitivity to neighborhood scale. The design introduces a shallow-pitched roof running parallel to the hillside, eaves set to standard heights, and a division of the home into four smaller modules with slight rotations to reduce long facade planes, lower roof ridges, and to create variable setbacks. Projections and recesses were incorporated to add shadow, depth, and a human scale to the home.
6 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The Applicant explained that the renderings, aerial comparisons, and physical models demonstrated that the design respects the existing neighborhood context and aligns with surrounding building heights and setbacks. The design also eliminates an existing sunroof protrusion in the rear yard, sets the house further back from the rear property line, and reduces ridge heights, where possible. Adjustments were made following neighbor feedback, including lowering the finished floor level and roof ridges, resulting in an overall reduction of the Project’s height by approximately one foot.
The Applicant highlighted that the proposed design preserves public view corridors, restores views previously blocked by vegetation, and maintains visual compatibility with the surrounding homes.
Renderings and model studies were shared to illustrate the contextual integration and human-scale proportions of the Project.
5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, twelve (12) individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
Tony Speranzo
(Appellant)
Expressed concerns that the proposed Project would significantly impair the ocean views from his home, which face directly toward the property under review. He noted that the increase in roof elevation approximately three to four feet above the existing structure would reduce his primary view by 40–50%, affecting key living spaces, including the kitchen, dining, and family room, as well as outdoor patios. Mr. Speranzo also stated that the proposed roof line does not follow the hillside topography and is slightly higher than neighboring homes, which he believes is inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. He requested that the Board consider modifications to the Project to preserve view equity and maintain consistency with the neighborhood’s scale and topography, emphasizing that the views are integral to the value of his property. p. 3-4 of 18
Harald Vogl Spoke in support of Appellant Tony Speranzo’s comments regarding potential view impacts. He noted a similar situation at his own home in 2019, when a neighboring property was rebuilt with a ridgeline three to four feet higher than the existing structure, which he stated negatively affected his view, quality of life, and property value. Mr. Vogl emphasized that while property owners may seek larger homes or higher ceilings, such changes should not come at the expense of neighboring views. He suggested that grading adjustments on the Applicant’s lot could allow for a larger home without impacting the views of surrounding properties. p. 4 of 18
Joyce Brodt
(Appellant)
Expressed concerns that the proposed Project would severely impact her property’s views, privacy, and sense of scale. She noted that she and her husband designed their home to maintain low building heights and respect neighbors’ views. Ms. Brodt stated that early neighborhood meetings with p. 4-5 of 18
7 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
the Applicant were brief and uninformative, and follow-up information was not provided until story poles were erected. She argued that the proposed structure’s height, massing, and extended eaves are excessive, loom over her property, and disrupt the established stair-step terrace pattern of the block. She highlighted that the Project would eliminate her primary south-facing mountain and ocean views and substantially reduce privacy from her rear patio and interior spaces. Ms. Brodt requested modifications to reduce overall height, scale back or set in extended eaves, and adjust the design to align with the neighborhood character of Driftwood Drive.
Aaron Peluso Noted that the proposed Project would negatively impact his ocean views, which he carefully preserved during a recent $2 million remodel. He noted that the existing single-story home already enjoys unobstructed views, and raising the roof is unnecessary and inconsistent with Laguna Beach’s view protection policies. Mr. Peluso emphasized that the Project does not follow the “stepping down the hillside” approach outlined in the City’s guidelines and could set a precedent for higher roof elevations in the neighborhood.
While he supports investment and finds the design attractive, he requested that the Applicant revise plans to maintain current ridge heights and conform to existing view-protective standards.
p. 5 of 18
Bill Bailey Opposed the proposed Project, noting that the increased roof height would block roughly 20% of his south-facing ocean views. He highlighted that previous neighborhood rebuilds were modified by the Board to reduce roof pitch and preserve views, consistent with the community’s original 1950s terrace design featuring low-pitch roofs. Mr. Bailey emphasized the importance of protecting ocean views for daily living, family gatherings, and community character, and urged the Board to apply design guidelines consistently to maintain the neighborhood’s visual integrity. p. 5 of 18
Mark Renault Expressed support for his neighbor Appellant Joyce Brodt’s concerns. He noted that he currently has a small “peekaboo” view of the south-facing ocean that would be blocked by the proposed Project if it encroaches toward Appellant Brodt’s property and urged the Board to consider her views in evaluating the Project.
p. 6 of 18
Mike Childs Noted that the proposed Project creates an unacceptable obstruction to Appellant Speranzos’ views. He suggested that the Project could reduce ridge height through adjustments such as lowering the pad elevation, flattening the roof pitch, or other modifications to lessen the visual impact. p. 6 of 18
Mike McKibben Expressed support for Appellants Brodt’s and Appellant Speranzo’s comments. He suggested that lowering the grade of the proposed property and pulling in the side setbacks could reduce impacts on neighbors’ views and privacy, resulting in a design more compatible with the surrounding community.
p. 6 of 18
8 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Sheila Jamison Expressed concern about the proposed structure’s proximity to her home and the resulting privacy impacts. She voiced support for the concerns raised by neighboring residents, including Appellants Brodt’s and Appellants Speranzo’s comments, and suggested that scaling down the Project could help address these issues.
p. 6 of 18
Marcus Imhof Expressed support for the concerns raised by neighboring residents regarding view impacts and neighborhood character. Mr. Imhof emphasized that approving the Project as currently designed could set a precedent for future roof height increases in the area. p. 7 of 18
Molly Zurflueh Attorney representing Appellants Brodt (21562 Ocean Vista Drive) and Appellants Speranzo (30782 Driftwood Drive) expressed concern that the proposed Project’s increased height, crawl space, concentrated massing along the northern property line, elevated ceilings, and extended eaves would intrude on neighbors’ primary view corridors and create a looming effect. Ms. Zurflueh noted that Appellants Speranzo could lose 40–50% of their ocean view, while the Appellants Brodt would lose south-facing ocean views and mountain views from their backyard. She stated the design conflicts with the City’s view equity guidelines by prioritizing the Applicant’s view over neighbors’ and suggested modifications including lowering overall height, shifting mass away from the north property line, and retracting extended eaves to reduce the Project’s visual impact. p. 7 of 18
Armando Baez Emphasized neighborhood compatibility and view equity. Mr. Baez noted that homes on the west side of Driftwood were built to similar heights, while east-side homes like theirs are higher on the slope, allowing views of Catalina, sunsets, and the ocean for all. He stressed that the neighborhood was intentionally designed to provide equitable views for every lot and expressed concern that the proposed Project’s increased ceiling heights and massing would compromise their limited views without benefiting the Applicant. The speaker urged the Board to preserve existing view equity while allowing thoughtful development.
p. 7-8 of 18
6. Applicant Rebuttal
Raha Talebi, the Project architect, emphasized how the Project carefully addresses neighborhood context, setbacks, and privacy. The south side yard features variable setbacks that exceed those of the existing home, and the north side maintains privacy through the placement of a single angled window and retention of an existing hedge. The four-module design, including valleys and varied roof heights, reinforces a human scale while minimizing bulk. Overlays and plans clarified that eaves and roof projections remain within established boundaries and do not extend beyond the existing footprint. The Applicant also addressed materials, landscaping, and lighting, emphasizing a rustic, informal approach that complements the neighborhood. Fire safety considerations were highlighted, including the use of an 18-inch mechanical crawlspace instead of a ventilated attic and lowered finished floor levels. Each module’s interior ceiling heights were carefully tailored to the program while respecting site constraints. 9 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
7. Board Deliberation
Topic Discussion Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
Access; Privacy;
View Equity
Board member Coveny praised the Applicant for thoughtfully addressing neighborhood design considerations, respecting the scale, character, and constraints of the community while introducing a fresh design. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction. She also noted that privacy, neighborhood compatibility, parking, and access were adequately addressed, and commended design elements such as window placement and material choices. She concluded the Project was consistent with Design Review criteria and expressed support for approval.
p. 13 of 18
[Coveny]
View Equity Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views. The only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor. She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact, indicating that with that adjustment, the Project would receive her support.
p. 13 of 18
[Gannon]
Design
Articulation;
Design Integrity;
Neighborhood
Compatibility;
View Equity
Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way. He observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors. He concluded that the Project meets the design review criteria and is compatible with the neighborhood context.
p. 14 of 18
[Weil]
Design Integrity Board member Bauta expressed support for the Project and complimented the design as a “beautiful home.”
p. 14 of 18
[Bauta]
View Equity Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the guidelines. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently. Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues and confirmed that the Applicant was amenable.
p. 14 of 18
[Gibbs]
10 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
8. Board Adoption of Resolution Approving the Application The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 25-1883 approving the Project, which includes the conditions of approval provided in the resolution, and subject to the following Project-specific condition:
1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the plans shall be modified to show that the eave on the north side of the residence is pulled back toward the house so as to not be located within the side yard setback. If staff and the Applicant are unable to agree on how to accomplish this, the matter shall return to the Design Review Board for resolution.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Board Approval (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of an appeal of non-design review approvals, such as a coastal development permit and revocable encroachment permit, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Board’s approval of CDP 25-1884 and REP 25-1885, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Board’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing. For the consideration of DR 25-1883, the City Council shall conduct a de novo review and is limited to considering the evidence that was presented to the Board and must consider whether the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Further, for DR 25-1883, the City Council is limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of Appeal.
Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “Failure to Apply View Equity Guidelines”
In short, the Appellants contend that the Speranzo and Brodt residences both lose primary views, falling short of the view equity design review criterion. The Appellants allege that the Project does not step with the hillside topography and is designed with excessive mass that obstructs views, specifically referencing the crawl space, elevated ceilings, and extended eaves. Finally, the Appellants posit that there were reasonable adjustments that would have sufficiently mitigated the view loss.
Staff’s Response
The Board applied the City’s view equity standards and relevant Design Guidelines, which require balancing the protection of neighboring views with a property owner’s right to reasonable development.
The Design Guidelines do not guarantee preservation of existing views. The Board considered view impacts, massing, roof configuration, setbacks, and site context and determined that the Project achieves an acceptable balance consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. Specifically, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.”
11 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The hearing record reflects that Board members visited the site, reviewed sightlines from surrounding properties, and evaluated photographic and illustrative evidence presented by both the Applicant and the public. The hearing record also reflects that view equity was a central focus of the Board’s review. Indeed, a majority of the Board specifically deliberated Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) and reached consensus that view equity was achieved. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction.9 Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views.10 Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that the only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor.11 She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact.12 Board member Weil observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors.13 Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the Design Review Guidelines.14 He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently.15 Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues.16
After discussion, the Board concluded that while the Project would result in some view intrusion, those impacts were limited in scope, did not eliminate primary horizon lines, and remained consistent with prior interpretations of view equity under the Design Guidelines. The Board further exercised its discretion to impose an additional condition requiring the reduction of the north side eave to eliminate encroachment into the side yard setback, thereby addressing a specific concern raised during the hearing. (See COA No.
28.)
As demonstrated by the approved plans and Figure 3 below, the proposed residence is located on a relatively flat portion of the site and would maintain a single level of building program below a pitched roof, which is typical of development in the surrounding area. The proposed crawl space is mostly below the existing grade, and the proposed 3:12 roof pitch is generally considered to be a low- to moderately-sloping roof form. The proposed residence does not step down with the hill because the lot is generally flat, with very little change in the topographic conditions within the building footprint. 9 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
10 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
11 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
12 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
13 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
14 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
15 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
16 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 13 of 18.
12 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 3: Proposed building section with existing grade dashed in green.
Driftwood Drive is located to the right of the building section.
Based on the record, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
2. “Disproportionate Harm to Adjacent Properties”
In short, the Appellant contends that the residences at 21562 Ocean Vista Drive (Appellant Brodt) and 30782 Driftwood Drive (Appellant Speranzo) were designed and remodeled with low roof forms, that Appellant Brodt’s residence would be overshadowed by the new structure, and that the extended eaves at the rear of the new structure would serve no purpose while impacting a south-facing view.
Staff’s Response
For context, below is a vicinity map showing the relation of Applicant’s property, Appellant Brodt’s property, and Appellant Speranzo’s property.
13 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Figure 4: Vicinity map
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 2. With respect to massing considerations, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
14 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat foot element over the main entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06') is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6'), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
Further with respect to massing, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.25 During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property.
The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (BoardAdopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable 25 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
15 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
standards.27 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Recorded Easement and Inequity”
In short, Appellants contend that the Applicant benefits from a recorded view easement, guaranteeing a permanent, unobstructed 180-degree ocean view over a residence located at 30832 Marilyn Drive to the southeast of the subject Property, and that the view impacts to the Appellant properties at 30782 Driftwood Drive and 21562 Ocean Vista Drive are inequitable in light of the Applicant’s guaranteed view rights.
Staff’s Response
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The Appeal includes as an attachment an easement granted by the property owners of 30832 Marilyn Drive to the property owners of 30801 Driftwood for a right of unobstructed access to light, air, and view of a described area. Marilyn Drive is located below Driftwood Drive, and the easement thereby restricts the rights of 30832 Marilyn Drive to develop higher and obstruct the views of 30801 Driftwood. The referenced view easement is a private property matter negotiated between private landowners and does not expand or limit the City’s land use authority. The Board’s review appropriately focused on compliance with City regulations and Design Guidelines, including View Equity.
View equity requires the development to be designed “to protect views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop.” (LBMC Section
25.05.040(H)(16)(italic emphasis added).) Here, the views of 30832 Marilyn Drive are not at issue, and the Board focused on the Applicant’s reasonable opportunity to develop in the context of proposing a new, single-story home and the views of the neighboring properties, including those of Appellants Brodt and Spenzano. Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards.28 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
4. “Inconsistency with Neighborhood Character”
In short, Appellants contend that the neighborhood is defined by terraced lots and low-profile structures to balance views, and that the Project’s bulk, extended eaves, and increased height disrupt this pattern, creating a looming effect inconsistent with the neighborhood scale. 27 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
28 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
16 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.31 During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property.
The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (BoardAdopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards.32 Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
5. “Procedural Deficiencies”
In short, the Appellant contends the Applicant did not meaningfully engage with neighbors prior to the Board hearing.
31 Attachment 9 [Transcript], p. 14 of 18.
32 Attachment 9 [Transcript], pp. 13-14 of 18.
17 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Staff’s Response
The Project satisfied all procedural requirements of the Design Review process, including early neighborhood communication [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(1)], staking [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(2)], Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)], public notice [LBMC Section
25.05.040(E)], a noticed public hearing, and the opportunity for public testimony. The record reflects that numerous speakers were heard, written correspondence was reviewed, and the Applicant responded to questions from both the public and the Board.
While neighbors expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of informal outreach and pre-hearing coordination, City regulations do not require agreement between applicants and neighbors as a condition of approval. The Board’s decision was based on the totality of the record developed through the public process.
6. “Errors in the DRB Hearing Record”
In short, Appellants contend that the view impact is substantial, that the Applicant’s statements acknowledging the ability to reduce the building height were disregarded, and that the Board failed to consider the Project’s fire risk.
Staff’s Response
Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to Staff’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The hearing record reflects the Board’s deliberate consideration of the Project’s view impacts and the design options presented during the review process. The Board retains discretion to determine which design alternatives, if any, are appropriate and is not required to adopt modifications proposed during the hearing.
Statements made by Board members reflect their evaluation of the evidence in the record, and the Board need not condition the Project to reduce the building height if the Board finds that the proposed Project height satisfies the View Equity design review criterion and other applicable criteria.
The hearing transcript demonstrates a thorough and detailed discussion of the Project’s design elements, including roof height, floor elevation, eaves, setbacks, crawl space design, ceiling heights, and roof pitch.
The Applicant acknowledged potential view impacts and confirmed that certain modifications were feasible, including reduction of the north side eave.
The Board evaluated these options, questioned the Applicant regarding feasibility, and ultimately imposed a condition of approval requiring the north side eave to be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. Additional proposals to further reduce overall roof height were discussed but ultimately not required, based on the Board’s determination that the Project already satisfied the View Equity criterion.
The Project also satisfied all requirements for Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)].
Concerns regarding fire safety, crawl space design, and construction materials were raised during rebuttal.
These matters are governed by the California Building Code and Fire Code and are reviewed during plan check and permitting. The Applicant’s design plans – which include a Fire Department site access plan and 18 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
fuel modification plan – were reviewed by the City’s Fire Code Official during the planning application review process, who found the Project feasible from a Fire Code and Building Code perspective. The Project must comply with these codes, including requirements for fire sprinklers, use of dual pane windows, and use of ignition-resistant exterior finishes. Additional reviews will take place once construction drawings are prepared and submitted for permitting, and compliance will be confirmed as part of the building inspection process following the issuance of building permits. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and sustaining the Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
19 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the Project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 include one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. This Project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a single-family dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the Project proposes to replace the existing single-family dwelling with a new single-family dwelling that will similarly maintain a single-story building height. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other unusual circumstances with regards to the Project site. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources on the site, and the closest officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim18 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 21-47)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 48-65)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 66)
4. Adopted DRB Resolution No. 25-1883 (Pgs. 67-81)
5. November 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report (Pgs. 82-96)
6. November 13, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pgs. 97-116)
7. November 13, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 117-150)
8. November 13, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 151-175)
9. November 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 176-193)
10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 194-195)
18 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 20 of 201
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, AND REP 25-1885 AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE
April 28, 2026
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Wendy Jung, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
21 of 201
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 25-1883 FOR DEMOLITION OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR GARAGE,
VEHICULAR ACCESS, SKYLIGHTS, GRADING, AND
LANDSCAPING, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-1884
FOR NON-EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT IN THE COASTAL ZONE,
AND REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-1885 FOR A
WALKWAY WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 30801
DRIFTWOOD DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL
LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES SECTION 15303
WHEREAS, the property owner, Amir and Susan Loloi (“Applicant”), of 30801 Driftwood Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 25-1883 for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling, two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping, Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 25-1884 for such non-exempt development in the coastal zone, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 for a walkway within the public right-of-way in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040, Section 25.07.004, and Section 11.50.030 (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on November 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. After receiving input from staff, the Applicant, and public comments, the Board discussed the Project and adopted Board Resolution No. 25-1883, by a 5-0 vote, conditionally approving the Project, and finding the Project categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15303 (the Attachment 1
21 22 of 201
-2- Reso. #
“Board Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 2025, Joyce and Henry Brodt and Anthony and Roberta Speranzo (“Appellants”) of 21562 Ocean Vista Drive and 30782 Driftwood Drive, respectively, filed an appeal of the Board Approval (“Appeal”); and
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the appeal of the Project at the January 27, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeals and continued the hearing to the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. “Failure to Apply View Equity Guidelines”
City Council’s Response
The Board applied the City’s view equity standards and relevant Design Guidelines, which require balancing the protection of neighboring views with a property owner’s right to reasonable development. The Design Guidelines do not guarantee preservation of existing views. The Board considered view impacts, massing, roof configuration, setbacks, and site context and determined that the Project achieves an acceptable balance consistent with the intent of the design guidelines. 22 23 of 201
-3- Reso. #
Specifically, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) as follows:
“As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.” The hearing record reflects that Board members visited the site, reviewed sightlines from surrounding properties, and evaluated photographic and illustrative evidence presented by both the Applicant and the public. The hearing record also reflects that view equity was a central focus of the Board’s review. Indeed, a majority of the Board specifically deliberated Criteria No. 16 (View Equity) and reached consensus that view equity was achieved. Board member Coveny observed that view impacts were minimal compared to existing conditions, contrary to neighbors’ concerns about significant obstruction. Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that most neighbors would experience minimal view impacts, observing that existing rooflines already limit certain skyline views. Chair Pro Tem Gannon noted that the only potential impact identified was in the kitchen view of Appellants Speranzo’s home, which was considered minor. She suggested a slight reduction of the eaves by about a foot to further minimize any impact. Board member Weil observed that view impacts were minimal, with minor adjustments suggested only for the roof above the living room, which could be slightly lowered to better respect downhill neighbors. Chair Gibbs emphasized that the issue is view equity, not absolute view preservation, noting that the Project’s minor view intrusions are within acceptable limits under the Design Review Guidelines. He acknowledged neighbors’ concerns, including terracing and changes to views, but confirmed that the Project complies with view equity standards and that the Board must apply the criteria fairly and consistently. Chair Gibbs agreed with slight roof modifications suggested by colleagues. 23 24 of 201
-4- Reso. #
After discussion, the Board concluded that while the Project would result in some view intrusion, those impacts were limited in scope, did not eliminate primary horizon lines, and remained consistent with prior interpretations of view equity under the Design Guidelines. The Board further exercised its discretion to impose an additional condition requiring the reduction of the north side eave to eliminate encroachment into the side yard setback, thereby addressing a specific concern raised during the hearing. (See COA No. 28.) As demonstrated by the approved plans Figure 3 in the agenda report, the proposed residence is located on a relatively flat portion of the site and would maintain a single level of building program below a pitched roof, which is typical of development in the surrounding area.
The proposed crawl space is mostly below the existing grade, and the proposed 3:12 roof pitch is generally considered to be a low- to moderately-sloping roof form. The proposed residence does not step down with the hill because the lot is generally flat, with very little change in the topographic conditions within the building footprint.
Based on the record, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
2. “Disproportionate Harm to Adjacent Properties”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 2. With respect to massing considerations, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 2 (Design Articulation) as follows:
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat foot element over the main 24 25 of 201
-5- Reso. #
entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06') is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6'), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
Further with respect to massing, the Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranchstyle residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive 25 26 of 201
-6- Reso. #
massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.
During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property. The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (Board-Adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Recorded Easement and Inequity”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 3.
The Appeal includes as an attachment an easement granted by the property owners of 30832 Marilyn Drive to the property owners of 30801 Driftwood for a right of unobstructed access to light, air, and view of a described area. Marilyn Drive is located below Driftwood Drive, and the easement thereby restricts the rights of 30832 Marilyn Drive to develop higher and obstruct the views of 30801 Driftwood. The referenced view easement is a private property matter 26 27 of 201
-7- Reso. #
negotiated between private landowners and does not expand or limit the City’s land use authority.
The Board’s review appropriately focused on compliance with City regulations and Design Guidelines, including View Equity.
View equity requires the development to be designed “to protect views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop.” (LBMC Section 25.05.040(H)(16)(italic emphasis added).) Here, the views of 30832 Marilyn Drive are not at issue, and the Board focused on the Applicant’s reasonable opportunity to develop in the context of proposing a new, single-story home and the views of the neighboring properties, including those of Appellants Brodt and Spenzano. Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
4. “Inconsistency with Neighborhood Character”
City Council’s Response
The Board found that the Project complied with Finding No. 1, Criteria No. 9 (Neighborhood Compatibility) as follows:
“The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranch-style residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the 27 28 of 201
-8- Reso. #
established development patterns in the area.”
As reflected in the record, the Board evaluated the Project’s visual impacts from neighboring properties within the framework of the Design Guidelines, which recognize that new development may result in changes to existing views. Testimony regarding alleged view loss, massing, and privacy impacts including impacts to Appellant Brodt residence was carefully considered alongside site observations, renderings, and comparisons between the existing and proposed conditions.
With respect to Appellant Brodt’s property, the Board considered concerns regarding roof height, massing along the north side, extended eaves, and potential view and privacy impacts. The Applicant explained that the Project incorporates articulated building modules, shallow roof pitches, variable setbacks, limited and angled fenestration on the north elevation, and existing landscaping to reduce perceived bulk and maintain privacy. Based on these design features and independent site visits, Board members concluded that the Project does not create excessive massing relative to Appellant Brodt’s residence. Indeed, Board member Weil commended the Project’s careful design, articulation, and material choices, noting that the breaking up of masses and single-story configuration were handled in a unique and sensitive way.
During deliberations, the Board specifically addressed the north side eave adjacent to the Brodt property. The Applicant confirmed that the eave could be reduced, and the Board imposed a condition of approval requiring that the north side eave be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. (Board-Adopted Resolution No. 25-1883, Condition No. 28.) This modification was determined to further mitigate potential visual impacts.
Board members stated on the record that the magnitude of view impacts asserted by neighbors was not supported by the evidence or their observations, and that any remaining impacts 28 29 of 201
-9- Reso. #
are limited, consistent with the range anticipated by the Design Guidelines, and do not constitute a disproportionate burden under view equity when balanced against the Applicant’s right to develop the property in compliance with applicable standards. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
5. “Procedural Deficiencies”
City Council’s Response
The Project satisfied all procedural requirements of the Design Review process, including early neighborhood communication [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(1)], staking [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(2)], Fire Department review [LBMC Section 25.05.040(C)(4)], public notice [LBMC Section 25.05.040(E)], a noticed public hearing, and the opportunity for public testimony. The record reflects that numerous speakers were heard, written correspondence was reviewed, and the Applicant responded to questions from both the public and the Board.
While neighbors expressed dissatisfaction with the extent of informal outreach and prehearing coordination, City regulations do not require agreement between applicants and neighbors as a condition of approval. The Board’s decision was based on the totality of the record developed through the public process.
6. “Errors in the DRB Hearing Record”
City Council’s Response
The City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 1 relating to View Equity is hereby incorporated by reference to the City Council’s Response to Appeal Contention No. 6.
The hearing record reflects the Board’s deliberate consideration of the Project’s view impacts and the design options presented during the review process. The Board retains discretion to determine which design alternatives, if any, are appropriate and is not required to adopt 29 30 of 201
-10- Reso. #
modifications proposed during the hearing. Statements made by Board members reflect their evaluation of the evidence in the record, and the Board need not condition the Project to reduce the building height if the Board finds that the proposed Project height satisfies the View Equity design review criterion and other applicable criteria.
The hearing transcript demonstrates a thorough and detailed discussion of the Project’s design elements, including roof height, floor elevation, eaves, setbacks, crawl space design, ceiling heights, and roof pitch. The Applicant acknowledged potential view impacts and confirmed that certain modifications were feasible, including reduction of the north side eave.
The Board evaluated these options, questioned the Applicant regarding feasibility, and ultimately imposed a condition of approval requiring the north side eave to be reduced so that it does not encroach into the side yard setback. Additional proposals to further reduce overall roof height were discussed but ultimately not required, based on the Board’s determination that the Project already satisfied the View Equity criterion.
The Project also satisfied all requirements for Fire Department review [LBMC Section
25.05.040(C)(4)]. Concerns regarding fire safety, crawl space design, and construction materials were raised during rebuttal. These matters are governed by the California Building Code and Fire Code and are reviewed during plan check and permitting. The Applicant’s design plans – which include a Fire Department site access plan and fuel modification plan – were reviewed by the City’s Fire Code Official during the planning application review process, who found the Project feasible from a Fire Code and Building Code perspective. The Project must comply with these codes, including requirements for fire sprinklers, use of dual pane windows, and use of ignitionresistant exterior finishes. Additional reviews will take place once construction drawings are prepared and submitted for permitting, and compliance will be confirmed as part of the building 30 31 of 201
-11- Reso. #
inspection process following the issuance of building permits. Based on the evidence, the Board proceeded in the manner required by law and the decision is supported by substantial evidence.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for DR 25-1883:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation.
Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
A new vehicular access with a code-compliant driveway is proposed from Driftwood Drive to a two-car garage located at the northern portion of the frontage. This configuration allows for a nose-in approach and replaces the existing southern driveway that served a side-entry garage. Road improvements will be required, including curb and gutter, pavement, and utility extensions.
Driftwood Drive is classified as a local street, so an onsite turnaround is not required. Although not consistent with the existing pattern of development a 3-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along the frontage that offsets at the driveway behind the driveway apron. A portion of the offset sidewalk at the driveway will require a grant of easement to the city for public use. As such, the project will not result in conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and other modes of transportation.
2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.
31 32 of 201
-12- Reso. #
The residence is designed with four gable roof sections, each having a 3:12 slope and oriented parallel to the street, joined at the center by a flat roof element over the main entry. As viewed from the street, the proposed highest roof ridge elevation (219.06’) is approximately 2.9 feet higher than the existing ridge elevation (216.6’), remaining well below the maximum permitted building height of 25 feet above curb level. The home is less than 15 feet above the curb.
3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.
The design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression. Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors.
4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
The proposed project is located within a developed residential neighborhood. The existing site is relatively flat with no existing rock outcroppings, ridgelines, or significant watercourses.
The proposed grading includes 400 cubic yards of export mostly to create a crawl space under the building and lower the garage finished floor. This is a nominal amount of grading that will not significantly alter the existing terrain.
32 33 of 201
-13- Reso. #
5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.
The Project complies with the General Plan including, but not limited to, the following policies:
General Plan Policies
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.
The existing site is generally flat. The project proposes approximately 400 cubic yards of export grading to accommodate a crawl space beneath the one-story single-family dwelling and associated site improvements. The project will not result in substantial alteration of natural or existing landforms, as the property is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no remaining natural landforms.
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The design of the proposed one-story dwelling reduces massing and provides view equity for the adjacent neighbors. There are no public coastal or canyon views across the project site. As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations. 33 34 of 201
-14- Reso. #
LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant on-site resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures. Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff-top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).
The existing site is relatively flat and there are no natural topographic features, or other significant resources on or near the project site. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding development in the neighborhood. The site is not visible from major highways and arterial streets. As such, the project will not result in adverse impacts on views from public locations.
LU Policy 7.3 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources, such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize natural landform alterations. (Same as Policy 10.2.) GOAL: Protect, preserve, and enhance the community’s natural resources.
The existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling which is designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses.
There are no public views across the project site.
34 35 of 201
-15- Reso. #
LU Policy 7.10 Require new construction and grading to be located in close proximity to preexisting development to minimize environmental impacts and growth-inducing potential.
The project is located in a developed residential neighborhood. The existing topography is relatively flat, and minimal grading is required to accommodate the proposed single-family dwelling. As such the project will not result in environmental impacts or growth-inducing potential.
LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.
The existing site is relatively flat and does not contain any natural or environmentally sensitive resources. The project proposes minimal grading for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling and includes landscaping designed to be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. There are no public views across the project site.
6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.
The subject property is not listed on the city’s historic register, nor is there any record of the site or surrounding properties being designated or identified as historic.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines 35 36 of 201
-16- Reso. #
contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.
The planting plan meets both the very high fire hazard severity (VHFHSZ) and fuel modification standards. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure. All other proposed planting will not exceed 4 feet in height with most planting not higher than 18 inches.
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, highgloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
The proposed project includes building-mounted lighting at seven exterior doors in addition to landscape lighting, as specified on Sheet L3.0. This sheet specifies fixture types and locations. All lighting will consist of low-wattage, shielded LED fixtures directed downward, consistent with the City’s Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance to minimize potential impacts on adjacent properties. The project also proposes a warm gray built-up roof with a non-reflective finish, ensuring that the material will not produce glare or cause adverse visual impacts to surrounding properties.
9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.
36 37 of 201
-17- Reso. #
The surrounding area is characterized primarily by one- and two-story cottages and ranchstyle residences, with a few contemporary homes in the vicinity. The proposed one-story design, reflecting a mid-century beach vernacular, is compatible with the existing neighborhood context, as its height, scale, and massing are consistent with the established development patterns in the area.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.
Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.
The proposed window placement has been carefully designed, and primary living and entertainment areas are situated in locations like those of the existing residence. Accordingly, the project will not result in a substantial invasion of privacy for neighboring properties.
12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.
Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high-quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the 37 38 of 201
-18- Reso. #
surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.
Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and this residential project is not subject to these criteria.
14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.
The new construction will meet Title 24 Energy and Building Code requirements, which include insulated windows and energy-efficient lighting. The applicant will be required to provide proof of compliance. The roof plan includes a minimum of 80 square feet of solar ready roof area.
Further, the applicant will be required to reuse, recycle, or divert at least 65 percent of the project’s construction and demolition debris.
15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
The project does not include a swimming pool, spa or water feature.
16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The 38 39 of 201
-19- Reso. #
“Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.
As designed, the proposed one-story structure is intended to provide for views for the adjacent neighbors. The relocated multi-trunk palm tree would reach a mature height of 15 feet which would be below the maximum roof height of the structure.
Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.
The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document, as explained above.
Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.
The existing site is relatively flat. The proposed one-story dwelling is appropriately scaled in relation development in the surrounding neighborhood. The architectural design draws significant inspiration from the mid-century beach vernacular, reflected in its scale, materiality, and structural expression. Proposed materials include warm-colored aggregate built-up roofing, exposed overhang beams, vertical timber batten siding, and dark bronze anodized aluminum windows and doors. The proposed residence and landscaping has been designed to minimize potential view impacts for neighboring properties.
Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.
39 40 of 201
-20- Reso. #
This project is not subject to any other specific plan or additional design review criteria.
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for CDP 25-1884:
Finding No. 1: The project is in conformity with all the applicable provisions of the certified local coastal program, including the following review criteria:
1. The proposed development will not encroach upon any existing physical accessway legally utilized by the public or any proposed public accessway identified in the adopted local coastal program land use plan.
The subject property does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, any existing or proposed public accessways identified in the adopted Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan. The proposed development will not alter or encroach upon any legally utilized public accessway, as none exist on or near the site.
2. The proposed development will not adversely affect marine resources, environmentally sensitive areas, or archaeological or paleontological resources.
The site is not an oceanfront lot and will not adversely affect marine resources. There are no environmentally sensitive areas or known archaeological or paleontological resources on the site.
3. The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources.
The proposed development will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities or coastal scenic resources. The project is located within an established residential neighborhood. The proposed one-story single-family dwelling is less than 15 feet above the curb and will be set back 20 feet from the front property line. The proposed highest roof ridge is limited 40 41 of 201
-21- Reso. #
to 2.9 feet higher than the existing highest ridge and is consistent with the pattern of development in the neighborhood, as such, will not adversely affect recreational or visitor-serving facilities and will not obstruct or degrade views of the coast or other scenic resources.
4. The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats and scenic resources located in adjacent parks and recreation areas and will provide adequate buffer areas to protect such resources.
The proposed development will not result in adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitats, as none exist on or near the project site. In addition, the proposed residence is not located in proximity to parks or recreation areas. Therefore, the development will not adversely affect scenic resources.
5. The proposed development will minimize the alterations of natural landforms and will not result in undue risks from geological and erosional forces and/or flood and fire hazards.
The existing site is relatively flat, and the project involves only a nominal amount of grading export for the construction of a one-story single-family dwelling. The project will not substantially alter any natural or existing landforms, as the site is located within a developed neighborhood and contains no natural landforms. Additionally, the development will not pose undue risks related to geological, erosional, flood, or fire hazards, as it will be required to comply with all applicable Building Code standards.
6. The proposed development will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and where feasible, will restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.
The proposed one-story single-family dwelling has been designed to maintain a building height more than 10 feet below the maximum allowable height limit, consistent with applicable 41 42 of 201
-22- Reso. #
zoning regulations. Additionally, the subject property is not located within a visually degraded area, and the proposed development would not result in adverse visual or aesthetic impacts.
7. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource.
There are no known existing archeological or paleontological resources in the project area.
8. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities.
The project site is a buildable lot in a developed neighborhood with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and other necessary facilities to serve the proposed new single-family dwelling.
9. Other public services, including, but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development.
Other public services, including solid waste collection and roadway capacity, are adequate to serve the proposed development.
The project is consistent with all applicable policies of the Certified LCP.
LCP DOCUMENTS
The project conforms with all the following applicable documents of the Certified LCP.
Design Guidelines - A Guide to Residential Development
Land Use Element
Title 22 - Excavation and Grading
Title 25 - Zoning Code
Finding No. 2. Any development located between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea is in conformity with the certified local coastal program and with the public 42 43 of 201
-23- Reso. #
access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act.
The development is not located between the sea and the first public road. As detailed above in the facts supporting Finding Number 1, the proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program.
Finding No. 3. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.
As described further herein, the project does not have any significant adverse environmental impacts. The Project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for REP 25-1885:
Finding No. 1: It should be located in a manner that is not hazardous to the traveling public, including motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.
The proposed encroachment is designed and located to not interfere with existing and proposed public street improvements. The walkway is located behind the existing curb and designed for entry into the property adjacent to the driveway, thereby minimizing potential vehicle conflicts.
Finding No. 2: It should be sufficiently set back from the edge of pavement or street centerline to provide adequate travel, parking, and walking lanes.
The proposed encroachment is on grade between the existing curb and property line and does not affect travel, parking, and walking lanes. Public parking spaces located along the street frontage will be preserved. Therefore, this finding can be made. 43 44 of 201
-24- Reso. #
Finding No. 3: It should not conflict with preexisting public utility structures, especially hydrants, vault and service meters in any manner that necessitates relocation thereof at public expense or causes any other unacceptable interference, including impediments to the maintenance, relocation or repair of pipelines, conduits, or substructures of any public utility.
The proposed encroachments would not conflict with any preexisting or proposed utility structures as all utilities are located below grade on this site.
Finding No. 4: It will not preclude public access, use or enjoyment of any area that has historically established such access, use or enjoyment.
The proposed improvements will not preclude public access or use of the street. Public parking will remain along the street frontage.
Finding No. 5: It is not precedent setting in nature to the extent that it creates a noticeable projection into the streetscape as established by existing construction and improvements on neighboring properties.
Neighboring properties on the street have similar encroachments. Furthermore, the proposed encroachments are not a noticeable projection as they are located behind or in line with the existing curb. Therefore, the proposed encroachment would not be precedent setting.
Finding No. 6: It does not create structures of unusual or unacceptable appearance, form, shape or height that detract from the general quality of the streetscape.
The proposed encroachment would not detract from the general quality of the streetscape because the walkway is customary and typical, pedestrian in scale and on grade.
SECTION 6. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, 44 45 of 201
-25- Reso. #
in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Examples of projects that qualify for a Class 3 exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 include one single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption. This project fits within the Class 3 exemption because it is construction of a singlefamily dwelling on an existing legal building site and no structures are proposed within any open space overlay or environmentally sensitive area.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
As indicated above, the Project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the Project proposes to replace the existing single-family dwelling with a new single-family dwelling that will similarly maintain a single-story building height. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other unusual circumstances with regards to the Project site. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway in that the Project would not impact trees, there are no historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources on the site, and the closest 45 46 of 201
-26- Reso. #
officially designated state scenic highway is located near Anaheim1 and therefore the Project will not result in damage to scenic resources within or near such highway. The Project is not located on a hazardous waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 7. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Board Resolution No. 25-1883, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.
ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
1 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 46 47 of 201
-27- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on April 28, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
47 48 of 201
Attachment 2
48 49 of 201
12/01/2025
$2,500.00
49 50 of 201
50 51 of 201
51 52 of 201
52 53 of 201
53 54 of 201
54 55 of 201
55 56 of 201
56 57 of 201
57 58 of 201
58 59 of 201
59 60 of 201
60 61 of 201
61 62 of 201
62 63 of 201
63 64 of 201
64 65 of 201
65 66 of 201
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:
Appeal of approval of Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family residence with a two-car garage at 30801 Driftwood Drive in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for the new structure, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping. A coastal development permit is required for the proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family residence. A revocable encroachment permit is required for a walkway within the public right-of-way.
Applicant: Raha Talebi, Designer
A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.
SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, January 27, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.
For additional information, contact City staff: Wendy Jung, Principal Planner (949) 497-0321 or [email protected].
Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.
CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The project is proposed as non-appealable development. The application was filed on April 29, 2024 by Raha Talebi and is assigned application number CDP 25-1884. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,500 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070. The decision by the City Council is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.
Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/California Coastal Commission/ Interested Persons List / Publish Date: 1/16/2026
Attachment 3
66 67 of 201
Attachment 4
67 68 of 201
68 69 of 201
69 70 of 201
70 71 of 201
71 72 of 201
72 73 of 201
73 74 of 201
74 75 of 201
75 76 of 201
76 77 of 201
77 78 of 201
78 79 of 201
79 80 of 201
80 81 of 201
81 82 of 201
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
November 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.7
Case No: Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885
Request: Demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family residence with a two-car garage, vehicular access, skylights, grading, and landscaping in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone. A revocable encroachment permit is requested for a walkway within the public right-of-way.
Location: 30801 Driftwood Drive | APN: 656-212-03
Applicant: Raha Talebi, Designer
(214) 244-1354, [email protected]
Owner: Amir and Susan Loloi
Staff: Community Development Department
Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner
(949) 715-1284, [email protected]
Recommendation:
Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 25-1883 approving Design Review 25-1883, Coastal Development Permit 25-1884, and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-1885 for the property located at 30801 Driftwood Drive and find said action categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303.
CEQA:
The project qualifies for a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, in that the project consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small structures.
Coastal Development Permit:
The proposed demolition of the existing structure and construction of a new single-family dwelling requires the approval of a coastal development permit pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Section
25.07.004.
Board Members within a 500’ Radius: None
Attachment 5
82 83 of 201
DR 25-1883, CDP 25-1884, REP 25-1885
November 13, 2025