Laguna Beach City Council
May 12, 2026

SB 1205 was enacted in response to legislative inquiries following the 2016 “Ghost Ship” fire in Oakland, where a warehouse was unlawfully converted into a live/work artist collective resulted in 36 fatalities. The incident prompted significant changes in local code enforcement practices and increased statewide focus on life-safety regulations.

The table below summarizes the Department’s inspection results for the period of July 1, 2025, through June 30, 2026.

Occupancy Classification Total
Inspected
Total in
Inspection
Database
Percentage
Inspected
E (Educational) 8 8 100%
R-1 (Hotels and Motels – Transient in Nature) 33 33 100% R-2 (Condominiums, Apartments, Dormitories,
with 3 or more dwelling units – Permanent in
nature)
156 156 100%
Pursuant to Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4(c), the City Council, as the administering authority of the LBFD, is required to acknowledge receipt of the LBFD’s inspection activities in a resolution or similar formal document.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact on the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it is an organizational or administrative activity 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. (CEQA Section 21065; CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).) Further, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this Resolution is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. As this is the City Council acknowledging receipt of the LBFD inspection reports, there is no potential for any resulting physical change to the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution (Pgs. 4-7)
2 of 467
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH

STATE INSPECTION MANDATES
May 12, 2026

Submitted By:
. Approved: .David A Kiff
Niko King, Fire Chief Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Robert Montaghami, Fire Marshal
Christopher Caisip, Fire Safety Inspector
Niko King, Fire Chief
3 of 467
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACKNOWLEDGING

RECEIPT OF A REPORT FROM THE LAGAUNA BEACH FIRE

DEPARTMENT DEMOSNTRATING COMPLAINCE WITH
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTION 13146.4 AND FINDING

THE SAME EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 require all fire departments, including the Laguna Beach Fire Department (“LBFD”), that provide fire protection services to perform annual inspections in every building used as a public or private school, hotel, motel, lodging, house, apartment house, and certain residential care facilities for compliance with building standards, as provided; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 requires all fire departments that provide fire protection services, including the LBFD, to report annually to their administering authority a report detailing the inspection activities required by California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3; and
WHEREAS, California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4(c) requires the City Council, as the administering authority, to acknowledge receipt in a resolution or similar formal document; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Laguna Beach intends this Resolution to fulfill the requirements of the California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4 regarding acknowledgement of the LBFD’s compliance with California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in the jurisdictional areas of the LBFD.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:

Attachment 1
4 4 of 467
-2- Reso. #
SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. The City Council of the City of Laguna Beach hereby acknowledges receipt of the following report by the LBFD regarding the inspections required by California Health & Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 in compliance with California Health & Safety Code Section 13146.4:
(a) EDUCATIONAL GROUP E OCCUPANCIES:

Educational Group E occupancies are generally those public and private schools, used by more than six persons at any one time for educational purposes through the 12th grade.

Within the Fire Department’s jurisdictional boundaries, there are eight known Group E occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities.

During the fiscal year 2025-2026, the Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 8 Group E occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities. This represents a compliance rate of 100% for the current reporting period. (b) RESIDENTIAL GROUP R OCCUPANCIES:

Residential Group R occupancies, for this resolution, generally those occupancies containing sleeping units, and including hotels, motels, and apartments (3 units or more).

Within the Fire Department’s jurisdictional boundaries, there are 32 known Residential Group R-1 occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities; and 156 known Residential Group R-2 occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities.

During the fiscal year 2025-2026, the Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 32 Group R-1 occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities. This represents a 100% 5 5 of 467
-3- Reso. #
compliance rate for this reporting period.

Additionally, the Fire Department completed the annual inspection of 156 Group R-2 occupancies, buildings, structures, and/or facilities. This represents a compliance rate of 100% for the current reporting period.

SECTION 4. The Resolution is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the State of California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it is an organizational or administrative activity 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. (CEQA Section 21065; CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5).) Further, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this Resolution is nonetheless exempt from the requirements of CEQA in that the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

As this is the City Council acknowledging receipt of LBFD inspection reports, there is no potential for resulting physical change to the environment.

SECTION 5. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall attest as to the adoption and execution of this Resolution and cause the same to be maintained in the permanent records of the City. 6 6 of 467
-4- Reso. #
SECTION 7. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.

ADOPTED this 12th day of May, 2026.

Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
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 May 12, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, CA
7 7 of 467

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 12, 2026

CONSENT
15 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026 MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the April 27, 2026 complaint demanding the City Council “cure and correct” alleged Brown Act violations relating to the City Council’s April 14, 2026 consideration of the Title 18 Ordinance (Agenda Item No. 16 at that meeting);

2. Receive and file this report analyzing the allegations in that complaint; and

3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare, execute, and send, a letter pursuant to Government Code section 54960.1(c)(2), to the complainant conveying that the City Council considered the April 27, 2026 email demanding a cure or correction under the Brown Act, determining that no Brown Act violation occurred as the agenda title was sufficient and the City Council action was consistent with the agenda title, and therefore the City Council will not take further action regarding this matter as there is no action to correct.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On April 27, 2026, the City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach (“City”) received an email from “Beaches for All” (“Complainant”) alleging a Brown Act violation by the City Council and demanding an action to “cure and correct” under Government Code Section 54960.1 (the “Demand”). The Brown Act provides that any person may challenge an action taken by the City Council by filing a written demand to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the Brown Act. (Gov. Code § 54960.1(b).) The City takes the Brown Act—and every allegation related thereto—seriously, even when it would appear on its face to be without merit. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand whether it will “cure or correct” the referenced action.[1] Tonight’s meeting is within the 30-day period for response. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54960.1(b), the Council must determine whether a violation occurred and if so, whether to cure the violation.

[1] If the City Council does not act within 30 days, it is deemed to have determined not to take any corrective action. (Gov. Code § 54960.1(c)(3).)

DISCUSSION
Allegations/Demand
A copy of the Demand alleging a violation of the Brown Act is attached hereto. (Attachment 1). The Demand asks for the following relief:
1 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

Pursuant to Government Code §54960.1, this letter constitutes a formal demand that the City of Laguna Beach cure and correct multiple violations of the California Brown Act arising from actions taken by the City Council on April 14, 2026, under Agenda Item #16.

These violations include (1) a materially misleading and legally deficient agenda description, and (2) the use of a staff report and redline document that failed to accurately represent existing law and the scope of proposed changes. …

5. Demand to Cure and Correct
The City must cure and correct these violations by:

1. Rescinding all actions taken under Agenda Item #16 on April 14, 2026, including any resolutions, ordinance introductions, or direction to staff;

2. Re-noticing the matter with a legally adequate agenda description that clearly discloses all proposed regulatory changes, including:
o Sunshade restrictions; and
o Swimming and surfing (blackball) regulations;

3. Providing a corrected and accurate redline that:
o Properly reflects existing Municipal Code provisions; o Accurately identifies deletions and additions; and
o Uses correct section numbering and content consistent with the published code. (Attachment 1 [emphasis in original].)
The basis for the Demand is, at its core, based on the following factual allegations:

1. Materially Misleading Agenda Description
Government Code §54954.2 requires that an agenda provide a “brief general description” sufficient to inform the public of the business to be transacted.

The April 14, 2026 agenda described Item #16 in terms of “special event permits” and related matters. However, the Council’s action included substantive, generally applicable regulatory changes, including:
• Adoption and/or introduction of new restrictions on sunshades affecting general public use of City beaches; and
• Adoption and/or introduction of changes to swimming and surfing regulations, including so-called “blackball” rules governing ocean use. 2 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

These are permanent, citywide public access and use regulations, not limited to special events.

A reasonable member of the public reviewing the agenda would not have been on notice that such sweeping changes would be considered. The agenda therefore affirmatively mischaracterized the scope of the action and failed to comply with the Brown Act.

2. Subsequent Agenda Revision Confirms Defect
The City’s subsequent agenda for the second reading (Agenda Item #12, April 2026) appears to expand or “clean up” the description of the ordinance.

This post hoc revision is strong evidence that the original April 14 agenda description was inadequate. Despite this revision, the agenda still fails to clearly disclose changes to swimming and surfing regulations, demonstrating a continuing lack of proper notice.

3. Misleading and Defective Redline in Staff Report
The Brown Act violation was compounded by the City’s use of a misleading redline document in the April 14 staff report.

The redline purports to show:
• Existing code in black text; and
• Deletions/additions in red text.

However, comparison to the City’s published Municipal Code demonstrates that the redline does not accurately reflect existing law.

For example:
• The redline identifies §18.20.020 as “Swimming and Surfing—Hazardous conditions”;
• The current Municipal Code identifies §18.20.020 as “Surfing—Time and place permitted.”
This is not a minor formatting issue. It reflects a fundamental mismatch between the redline and the actual code, including section numbering and substantive content.

As a result, the redline:
• Misrepresents what constitutes existing law;
• Obscures the scope and nature of proposed changes; and • Misleads both the public and decision-makers.

A legislative body cannot satisfy the Brown Act by providing materials that purport to disclose changes while in fact mischaracterizing the underlying law. (Attachment 1 [emphasis in original].)
3 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

April 14, 2026 Agenda and Council Action
The following item was, verbatim, placed on the April 14, 2026 City Council regular meeting agenda as Item No. 16, imaged as below:

While the Demand indicates the agenda title refers to “‘special event permits’ and related matters” (Attachment 1, emphasis added), the above-referenced agenda item clearly describes that the City Council would consider whether to introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Title 18, as well amendments to Section 6.16.020 and 8.04.010, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. It further describes that Council would also consider whether to adopt a Resolution establishing locations and regulations for special events.

Finally, it states exemptions for CEQA related to each of those actions.

Title 18, as codified in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, is entitled “Beaches and Parks.” The Laguna Beach Municipal Code is available online, and lists all titles by name. All persons are presumed to know local ordinances. (See Elm v. McKee (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 353.) On April 14, 2026, the City Council met to consider Item No. 16, as agendized. All those wishing to speak were provided with the opportunity to make public comment. Council publicly deliberated on the various identified issues before acting on staff’s recommendation, as was previously directed by the City Council at its January 26, 2026 meeting, including by considering proposed recommended changes to the draft ordinance that were more particularly described in both the staff report and staff recommendation for Item

16. As noted in the Demand, the staff report included a redline—in addition to a clean copy—to make clear to the public the exact changes to the law that were being made by comparing the new language of the 4 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

ordinance to the existing language. Although the Demand indicates the redline was misleading due to a “fundamental mismatch between the redline and the actual code,” as noted in the staff report, the redline reflects the substantive changes made implementing Council’s direction from its January 27, 2026 meeting—and not as a redline of the pre-existing ordinance.

Critically, the City Council, in conducting the first reading of the Title 18 Ordinance, as identified in the agenda title, did not take any action to add or change items to the ordinance that were not already a subject matter included in Title 18. More specifically, both sunshades and swimming and surfing regulations were already part of Title 18 prior to the consideration of this item; indeed, those were some of the very amendments of Title 18 to which the agenda title refers.

April 28, 2026 Agenda and Council Action
The following item was, verbatim, placed on the April 28, 2026 City Council regular meeting agenda, imaged as below:

The Demand appears to draw a distinction between this agenda title and that of April 14th, as included above, by asserting the April 28th item “expanded or ‘cleaned up’ the description of the ordinance,” apparently in reference to the agenda description including a Resolution “establishing certain shade covering zones at Main Beach and Aliso Beach.” (See Attachment 1.) Notably, however, the title of the Title 18 Ordinance is identical to the April 14 meeting. The reference to shade coverings was because a different and additional Council action (that was not on the April 14 meeting) was added to this agenda— i.e., adopting a Resolution identifying shade covering zones. 5 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

The Brown Act
The Brown Act's requirement that meetings be open to the public ensures the public's right to attend City Council meetings, subject to limited statutory exceptions (i.e., closed session topics). The Brown Act mandates that “meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of the local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” (Government Code § 54953(a).) Official actions of a legislative body of a local agency must be taken at a noticed meeting, and every regular meeting of a legislative body must be preceded by a posted agenda that advises the public of the meeting and the matters to be transacted or discussed at that meeting. (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1).) A brief description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. (Id., § 54954.2(a)(1)(A).) The Brown Act disallows local legislative bodies from acting on any matter not listed on the posted agenda. (Id., § 54954.2(a)(3).) The Brown Act was designed to facilitate public participation in local governmental decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation.

Before pursuing judicial determination of an action allegedly in violation of the Brown Act is null and void, an interested party must first demand the legislative body cure or correct its alleged mistake. (Government Code § 54960.1(b).) Under the facts presented here, the Complainant made written demand on April 27, 2026 as to certain alleged violations at the April 14, 2026 City Council meeting. (See id., § 54960.1(c)(1).) The City has 30 days to respond to the Demand per the requirements of the Brown Act. (See ibid.)

ANALYSIS
It is the position of the City that the above-referenced agenda description and the Council’s action on Item No. 16 at the April 14, 2026 Council meeting did not violate the Brown Act. Specifically, the abovereferenced agenda title expressly identifies the item to be considered, among other things, included amendments to Title 18. The attachments to Title 18 included the proposed ordinance, in both clean copy and as a redline, to clearly identify the proposed changes being made.

After public comment and deliberation, the City Council considered and adopted staff’s recommendations as to Item No. 16, with certain modifications to the draft ordinance, including but not limited to sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations, per staff’s recommendations. In short, the City Council considered precisely and only what the agenda identified. It took no other action.

The recommended amendments to Title 18 included, inter alia, both changes to sunshade coverings and regulations relating to swimming and surfing regulations. Critically, sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations were subject matters already included in the existing ordinance (that is, before the recommended action). As all persons are presumed to have knowledge of the law, including local ordinances (see Elm, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d 353), members of the public are presumed to have notice of the City’s duly-enacted ordinances, including then-existing sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations.
6 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

Moreover, the Brown Act contemplates that a “brief general description of an [agenda] item generally not exceed 20 words.” (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1)(A).) The Brown Act does not contemplate, thus, that the face of the agenda identify each proposed amendment, addition, or deletion. Nevertheless, although the Brown Act does not require a staff report and the draft ordinances as part of the agenda item, Agenda Item no. 16 included a staff report detailing the proposed changes, as well as a redline and clean copy, and the prior staff report and attachments from the City Council’s January 27, 2026 meeting where the Council discussed the item—including sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations—and gave direction. Thus, contrary to the allegations in the Demand, there is no requirement that the agenda more specifically identify the specific topics which may be amended by the proposed Ordinance (although the staff report and attachments nevertheless did so). Accordingly, the City Council appropriately took action on the item listed on the agenda, which was further properly listed.

Further, the comparison drawn by the Demand between the April 14th and April 28th agendas is a red herring.

As noted above, the April 14th agenda did not have an action for consideration of a Resolution identifying zones for sunshade coverings and thus no such resolution was considered as part of that Council action. The April 28th agenda did, by contrast, have an action for consideration of such a Resolution and thus appropriately identified that Resolution on the face of the agenda. Consequently, the agenda title for the April 14 meeting—and the Council’s respective action—were Brown Act compliant.

Finally, the Demand’s allegation that the redline provided as part of the staff report was misleading because “it did not accurately reflect existing law” is without merit. As noted in the staff report, the redline reflected changes from the Council’s prior direction (at the January 27, 2026 meeting). Further, the January 27, 2026 staff report was additionally attached to the April 14, 2026 staff report, which provided in meticulous detail the ordinance’s proposed changes. Moreover, a clean copy of the draft ordinance made clear the proposed new ordinance. In any event, none of these attachments are required by the Brown Act; they are provided for transparency for the public. Thus, the attachments do not establish a Brown Act violation, particularly where the agenda itself adequately described the item and the attachments provided additional (but not legally necessary) detail regarding the proposed changes.

Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to respond to the Demand stating that the April 14 City Council Agenda Item No. 16 was listed in compliance with the Brown Act, that the City Council took action in compliance with that agenda title, and therefore no Brown Act violation occurred.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no financial impact associated with this recommended action.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
7 of 480

CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026

MEETING
May 12, 2026

The recommended action does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 as an administrative direction that does not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment

ATTACHMENTS

1. Brown Act Cure and Correct Demand
Submitted By: Megan Garibaldi Approved: .David A Kiff
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
8 of 480
2 From: Beaches For All <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 5:31 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sunshade and Surfing/Swimming code changes Agenda Item #12 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] correction -I apologize the first sentence should indicate the April 14th agenda item was misagendized and had agenda problems.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beaches For All <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 5:25 PM
Subject: Sunshade and Surfing/Swimming code changes Agenda Item #12 To: <[email protected]>
Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
We respectfully request you do not perform a second reading on the ordinance changes related to agenda item #12 due to the fact that the first reading on April 12th 2026. Please acknowledge the following Demand to Cure and Correct letter below.

Sincerely,
Beaches for All
__________________________________________________________________________ Re: Demand to Cure and Correct – Brown Act Violations and Misleading Legislative Record April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting (Agenda Item #16)
Dear City Clerk:

Pursuant to Government Code §54960.1, this letter constitutes a formal demand that the City of Laguna Beach cure and correct multiple violations of the California Brown Act arising from actions taken by the City Council on April 14, 2026, under Agenda Item #16.

These violations include (1) a materially misleading and legally deficient agenda description, and (2) the use of a staff report and redline document that failed to accurately represent existing law and the scope of proposed changes.
9 of 480
3 1. Materially Misleading Agenda Description
Government Code §54954.2 requires that an agenda provide a “brief general description” sufficient to inform the public of the business to be transacted.

The April 14, 2026 agenda described Item #16 in terms of “special event permits” and related matters.

However, the Council’s action included substantive, generally applicable regulatory changes, including:
• Adoption and/or introduction of new restrictions on sunshades affecting general public use of City beaches; and
• Adoption and/or introduction of changes to swimming and suring regulations, including socalled “blackball” rules governing ocean use.

These are permanent, citywide public access and use regulations, not limited to special events.

A reasonable member of the public reviewing the agenda would not have been on notice that such sweeping changes would be considered. The agenda therefore airmatively mischaracterized the scope o the action and failed to comply with the Brown Act.

2. Subsequent Agenda Revision Conirms Deect
The City’s subsequent agenda for the second reading (Agenda Item #12, April 2026) appears to expand or “clean up” the description of the ordinance.

This post hoc revision is strong evidence that the original April 14 agenda description was inadequate.

Despite this revision, the agenda still fails to clearly disclose changes to swimming and surfing regulations, demonstrating a continuing lack of proper notice.

3. Misleading and Deective Redline in Sta Report
The Brown Act violation was compounded by the City’s use of a misleading redline document in the April 14 staff report.

The redline purports to show:
• Existing code in black text; and
• Deletions/additions in red text.

However, comparison to the City’s published Municipal Code demonstrates that the redline does not accurately relect existing law.

For example:
10 of 480
4 • The redline identifies §18.20.020 as “Swimming and Surfing—Hazardous conditions”; • The current Municipal Code identifies §18.20.020 as “Surfing—Time and place permitted.” This is not a minor formatting issue. It reflects a undamental mismatch between the redline and the actual code, including section numbering and substantive content.

As a result, the redline:
• Misrepresents what constitutes existing law;
• Obscures the scope and nature of proposed changes; and • Misleads both the public and decision-makers.

A legislative body cannot satisfy the Brown Act by providing materials that purport to disclose changes while in act mischaracterizing the underlying law.

4. Legal Consequences
Because the City:
• Failed to provide adequate agenda notice; and
• Relied on misleading legislative materials;
the actions taken on April 14, 2026 are null and void under Government Code §54960.1(a)(1).

The combination of deective notice and misleading documentation deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to understand and participate in the decision-making process.

5. Demand to Cure and Correct
The City must cure and correct these violations by:

1. Rescinding all actions taken under Agenda Item #16 on April 14, 2026, including any resolutions, ordinance introductions, or direction to staff;

2. Re-noticing the matter with a legally adequate agenda description that clearly discloses all proposed regulatory changes, including:
o Sunshade restrictions; and
o Swimming and surfing (blackball) regulations;

3. Providing a corrected and accurate redline that:
o Properly reflects existing Municipal Code provisions; o Accurately identifies deletions and additions; and
o Uses correct section numbering and content consistent with the published code. 11 of 480
5 6. Deadline or Response
The City is required to respond within 30 days of receipt of this demand, stating whether it will cure and correct the challenged action.

If the City fails to do so, I will consider all available legal remedies, including seeking judicial relief to invalidate the action and recovery of attorneys’ fees as permitted by law.

7. Reservation o Rights
This demand is made without prejudice to any other claims, including those arising under the California Coastal Act or other applicable laws governing public access and coastal resources. 3 Exhibits:

Exhibit #1 April 14th Agenda Description:

Exhibit #2 Redline rom April 14th
Exhibit #3 Existing code section description:
12 of 480
6 13 of 480

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 12, 2026

CONSENT
16 SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 4 FUND ACTIVITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Receive and file the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4 Fund Activity financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025; and

2. Find that the recommended action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, as it does not constitute a project.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This report presents the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4 Fund Activity financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, and recommends that the City Council receive and file the statements. The financial statements were reviewed and approved by the Audit Committee on April 21, 2026.

The City receives approximately $1.4 million annually in TDA funds from the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) to support transit operations. The financial statements were audited by an independent auditor, who issued an unmodified opinion with no findings.

DISCUSSION
Staff are pleased to present TDA Article 4 Fund Activity financial statements for fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 and 2024. These financial statements present only the TDA Fund Activity. The City receives approximately $1.4 million annually in TDA Funds from the OCTA to fund the City’s transit operations.

OCTA contracted with Crowe LLP to perform a financial and compliance audit of the TDA funds for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025.

The auditors expressed an unmodified opinion on the TDA Fund Activity’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, financial statements, indicating the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position and changes in financial position of the TDA Fund Activity in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The auditors also opined that the TDA Fund Activity complied with the compliance requirements described in California Code of Regulations related to the TDA Article 4. There were no audit findings reported by the auditors.

The Audit Committee reviewed and approved the financial statements on April 21, 2026, and recommends the City Council receive and file the report.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget. 1 of 499
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 4 FUND ACTIVITY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2025
May 12, 2026

ALIGNMENT WITH CITY COUNCIL GOALS & PRIORITIES
This action supports the City’s goal of fiscal responsibility and transparency by ensuring proper oversight, accountability, and reporting of restricted transportation funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
This action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it does not qualify as a “project.” The proposed action involves the receipt and filing of financial statements, which is an administrative activity that does not result in any direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

ATTACHMENTS

1. TDA Financial Statements Packet for Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2025 (Pgs. 3-19) Submitted By: Michelle Bannigan Approved: .David A Kiff Michelle Bannigan, Director of
Administrative Services
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By:

Tiffany Fung, Accounting Manager
2 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2025 and 2024
Attachment 1
3 3 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2025 and 2024

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT .................................................................................................... 1

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION ................................................................................................... 4 STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION ........................ 5 STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS ..................................................................................................... 6 NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ............................................................................................ 7

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
SCHEDULE OF THE ARTICLE 4 ALLOCATIONS RECEIVED AND
EXPENDED, BY PROJECT YEAR .................................................................................................. 9 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER

FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS

BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS ........................................................ 10 INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH TDA REQUIREMENTS AND REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 12 4 4 of 499
(Continued)

1. Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
Board of Directors
Orange County Transportation Authority
Orange, California
Report on the Audit of the Financial Statements
Opinion
We have audited the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4 Fund Activity (TDA Fund Activity) of the City of Laguna Beach, California (City), as of and for the years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024, and the related notes to the financial statements, as listed in the table of contents.

In our opinion, the accompanying financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the TDA Fund Activity of the City, as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, and the changes in its financial position and its cash flows for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Basis for Opinion
We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards). Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor's Responsibilities for the Audit of the Financial Statements section of our report. We are required to be independent of the City, and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements relating to our audits.

We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our audit opinion.

Emphasis of Matter
As discussed in Note 1, the financial statements present only the TDA Fund Activity, and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the financial position of the City as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, the changes in its financial position or, where applicable, its cash flows, for the years then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our opinion is not modified with respect to this matter.
5 5 of 499
(Continued)

2. Responsibilities of Management for the Financial Statements Management is responsible for the preparation and fair presentation of these financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America; this includes the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

Auditor’s Responsibility for the Audit of the Financial Statements Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor's report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Misstatements are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards, we Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.

Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit, significant audit findings, and certain internal control-related matters that we identified during the audit.

Additional Information
Management is responsible for the accompanying Schedule of the Article 4 Allocations Received and Expended by Project Year (the “additional information”), which is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the financial statements. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the additional information, and we do not express an opinion or any form of assurance thereon.

We read the additional information and considered whether a material inconsistency existed between the additional information and the financial statements, or the additional information otherwise appeared to be materially misstated. If, based on the work performed, we had concluded that an uncorrected material misstatement of the additional information existed, we would have described it in our report. 6 6 of 499

3. Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated March 16, 2026 on our consideration of the City’s internal control over financial reporting of the TDA Fund Activity, and our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, grant agreements, and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the City’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance of the TDA Fund Activity.

Crowe LLP
Costa Mesa, California
March 16, 2026
7 7 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

STATEMENTS OF NET POSITION
June 30, 2025 and 2024
See notes to financial statements.

4. 2025 2024
ASSETS
Due from other governments $ 114,029 $ 110,076
Total assets $ 114,029 $ 110,076

LIABILITIES
Due to other City funds $ 114,029 $ 110,076
Total liabilities 114,029 110,076

NET POSITION
Unrestricted - - Total net position - - Total liabilities and net position $ 114,029 $ 110,076 8 8 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

STATEMENTS OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN NET POSITION Years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024
See notes to financial statements.

5. 2025 2024
Operating expenses
TDA expenditures $ 1,433,700 $ 1,443,801
Operating loss (1,433,700) (1,443,801)
Non-operating revenues
TDA allocation 1,433,700 $ 1,443,801
Total non-operating revenues 1,433,700 1,443,801
Change in net position - - Net position, beginning of year - - Net position, end of year $ - $ - 9 9 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Years ended June 30, 2025 and 2024
See notes to financial statements.

6. 2025 2024
Cash flows from operating activities
Cash payment to suppliers for goods and services $ (1,433,700) $ (1,443,801) Transfer from (to) other City fund 3,953 (133)
Net cash used for operating activities (1,429,747) (1,443,934) Cash flows from noncapital financing activities
Cash received from operating grants (TDA Allocation) 1,429,747 1,443,934 Net cash provided by noncapital financing activities 1,429,747 1,443,934 Net change in cash and cash equivalents - - Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of year - - Cash and cash equivalents at end of year $ - $ - Reconciliation of operating loss to net cash used for operating activities Operating loss $ (1,433,700) $ (1,443,801)
Adjustments to reconcile operating loss to
net cash used for operating activities
Changes in assets and liabilities:

Change in due to/from other City funds 3,953 (133)
Net cash used for operating activities $ (1,429,747) $ (1,443,934) 10 10 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2025 and 2024
(Continued)

7. NOTE 1 – GENERAL INFORMATION
The financial statements are intended to reflect the financial position and changes in financial position of the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4 Fund Activity only, and do not purport to, and do not, present fairly the position of the City of Laguna Beach, California (City), the changes in its financial position or, where applicable, its cash flows, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The City receives Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 4 funding pursuant to Section 99260 of the California Public Utilities Code. Article 4 monies may be used for the support of public transportation systems, aid to public transportation research and demonstration projects, and contributions for the construction of grade separation projects.

The City submits claims to the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) for disbursement of Article 4 funds. The City may submit claims either prior or subsequent to incurring allowable expenses. After review and approval of the claim, OCTA issues the allocation disbursement instructions to the County of Orange Auditor-Controller. Following instructions from OCTA, funds are disbursed from the County of Orange, Local Transportation Fund, to the City.

NOTE 2 – SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Fund Accounting: The accounts are organized on the basis of funds. A fund is defined as an independent fiscal and accounting entity wherein operations of each fund are accounted for in a separate set of selfbalancing accounts that record assets, deferred outflows/inflows of resources, related liabilities, obligations, and net position segregated for the purpose of carrying out specific activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with special regulations, restrictions or limitations. The City accounts for the activity of the TDA Article 4 in its Municipal Transit Lines Fund, which is an Enterprise Fund.

Enterprise Funds are used to account for operations that are financed primarily through user charges, or where the governing body has decided that determination of net income is appropriate. Passenger fares represent the primary operating revenues of the fund. All other revenues are non-operating.

Measurement Focus and Basis of Accounting: Enterprise funds of the City are accounted for using the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized when incurred.

Estimates: The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that could affect certain reported amounts in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

NOTE 3 – DUE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Included in due from other governments is a receivable from OCTA for reimbursement of eligible TDA Article 4 expenses in the amount of $114,029 and $110,076 as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively. 11 11 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY

NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
June 30, 2025 and 2024

8. NOTE 4 – DUE TO OTHER CITY FUNDS
Due to other City funds of $114,029 and $110,076 as of June 30, 2025 and 2024, respectively, represent the amounts paid by the City on behalf of TDA Fund Activity. The amounts will be repaid by the TDA Fund Activity as disbursements are received from OCTA.
12 12 of 499

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
13 13 of 499

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA

TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUND ACTIVITY
SCHEDULE OF THE ARTICLE 4 ALLOCATIONS RECEIVED AND EXPENDED,

BY PROJECT YEAR
Year ended June 30, 2025

9. Unspent Unspent
Project Project Year Allocation Allocations Allocations Project Description Type Allocated Amount at 06/30/2024 Receipts Expenditures at 06/30/2025 Status Transit Program Local 2024-2025 $ 1,433,700 $ - $ 1,433,700 $ 1,433,700 $ - Closed Totals $ 1,433,700 $ - $ 1,433,700 $ 1,433,700 $ -
14 14 of 499
(Continued)

10. Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER

FINANCIAL REPORTING AND ON COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS

BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN

ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS
Board of Directors
Orange County Transportation Authority
Orange, California
We have audited, in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the Transportation Development Act Article 4 Fund Activity (TDA Fund Activity) of the City of Laguna Beach, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2025, and the related notes to the financial statements, and have issued our report thereon dated March 16, 2026.

Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City’s internal control over financial reporting of the TDA Fund Activity (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. 15 15 of 499

11. Report on Compliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements of the TDA Fund Activity of the City are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.

Crowe LLP
Costa Mesa, California
March 16, 2026
16 16 of 499
(Continued)

12. Crowe LLP
Independent Member Crowe Global
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH TDA COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS

AND REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE
To the Board of Directors
Orange County Transportation Authority
Orange, California
Report on Compliance with the Transportation Development Act We have audited City of Laguna Beach’s (“City”) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in Section 6667 of Part 21 of the California Code of Regulations related to the Transportation Development Act Article 4 (“TDA”), that could have a direct and material effect on the City’s compliance with the TDA for the year ended June 30, 2025.

In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on its compliance with the TDA for the year ended June 30, 2025.

Basis for Opinion on the TDA
We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS); the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States (Government Auditing Standards); and the TDA. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section of our report.

We are required to be independent of the City and to meet our other ethical responsibilities, in accordance with relevant ethical requirements relating to our audit. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion on compliance. Our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above.

Responsibilities of Management for Compliance
Management is responsible for compliance with the requirements referred to above and for the design, implementation, and maintenance of effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, statutes, regulations, rules and provisions of contracts or grant agreements applicable to the TDA. 17 17 of 499
(Continued)

13. Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether material noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the City’s compliance based on our audit. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the TDA requirements will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements referred to above is considered material, if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the City’s compliance with the requirements of the TDA.

In performing an audit in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the TDA, we:

Exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit.

Identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks. Such procedures include examining, on a test basis, evidence regarding the City’s compliance with the compliance requirements referred to above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.

Obtain an understanding of the City’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the TDA, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

We are required to communicate with those charged with governance regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we identified during the audit.

Report on Internal Control Over Compliance
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the TDA on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of the TDA will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of the TDA that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.

Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the Auditor’s Responsibilities for the Audit of Compliance section above and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance. Given these limitations, during our audit we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. However, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in internal control over compliance may exist that were not identified.
18 18 of 499

14. Our audit was not designed for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, no such opinion is expressed.

The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the TDA.

Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.

Crowe LLP
Costa Mesa, California
March 16, 2026
19 19 of 499

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 12, 2026

BUSINESS
17 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON LAGUNA BEACH MARINE

PROTECTED AREA BOUNDARY PETITION AND STATE REVIEW PROCESS RECOMMENDATION:

1. The Environmental Sustainability Committee recommends that the City Council support California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s recommendation to deny the petition and maintain the existing MPA boundaries; and

2. It is recommended that the City Council further find the recommended action is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and is alternatively exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The City Council is being asked to consider whether to support or oppose a petition submitted by the Laguna Beach Bluebelt Coalition to modify the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach no take Marine Protected Area (MPA).

At its April 20, 2026 meeting, the Environmental Sustainability Committee (Committee) reviewed the petition and voted to recommend that the City Council support the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) recommendation to deny the petition and maintain the MPA network as currently designated.

The Fish and Game Commission is scheduled to consider the petition at a public meeting on May 19, 2026.

The Commission will make the final decision.

DISCUSSION
At its April 20, 2026 meeting, the Committee conducted a comprehensive review of the Laguna Bluebelt petition, including the original petition materials, the CDFW staff report, the amended petition, and public testimony representing a broad range of perspectives.

Following deliberation, the Committee identified the following key findings:

1. Insufficient Scientific Basis for a Permanent Boundary Change The available data does not support a permanent modification to the existing MPA boundary. The materials reviewed did not establish a clear causal relationship between current fishing activity and kelp loss in the subject area, nor did they demonstrate that a no take designation would result in measurable ecological recovery.

2. Lack of Socioeconomic Impact Analysis
A comprehensive evaluation of socioeconomic impacts was not provided. Testimony highlighted potential effects on commercial and recreational fishing communities, including lobster fishermen 1 of 98

CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON LAGUNA BEACH MARINE PROTECTED AREA

BOUNDARY PETITION AND STATE REVIEW PROCESS
May 12, 2026

and regional ocean-based economies. Policy decisions of this magnitude would benefit from a more complete understanding of economic and community impacts.

3. Uncertainty Regarding Environmental Conditions in the Proposed Area Additional environmental factors, including water quality concerns associated with Aliso Creek discharge and localized ocean current patterns, have not been sufficiently studied. These conditions introduce uncertainty regarding how the proposed boundary change would function relative to existing MPAs.

4. Importance of Community Based Stewardship
The Committee emphasized the importance of incorporating the knowledge and experience of local stakeholders, including multigenerational fishing communities, into future MPA planning efforts.

A stewardship model that does not account for these perspectives may undermine long term sustainability and community trust.

The Committee also identified several actions for future consideration:
• Supporting additional scientific study of the undesignated coastal segment between Table Rock and the City’s southern boundary
• Conducting outreach to affected fishing communities to ensure informed participation in future discussions
• Exploring alternative stewardship models within the Dana Point State Marine Conservation Area that balance ecological protection with continued public access

LAGUNA BEACH BLUEBELT PETITION
The Laguna Beach Bluebelt Coalition submitted a petition to change the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach no take MPA (Attachment 2).

The proposal would:
• Extend no take protections south to the City’s southern boundary • Shift the boundary with the Dana Point MPA
• Apply one consistent no fishing rule across all Laguna Beach waters The petition states that the change would:
• Make rules easier to understand and enforce
• Reflect that the City now has jurisdiction over South Laguna beaches • Provide additional protection for kelp habitat
• Reduce risks to marine life, including whales

CDFW REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
CDFW reviewed the petition and recommended that it be denied. The report is included as Attachment 3.

Laguna Bluebelt provided a response to CDFW’s report which is included as Attachment 4. 2 of 98

CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON LAGUNA BEACH MARINE PROTECTED AREA

BOUNDARY PETITION AND STATE REVIEW PROCESS
May 12, 2026

CDFW’s findings include:
• The proposal does not address a major problem identified in its review • The existing boundary aligns with clear geographic features, which supports enforcement • Changing the boundary may create confusion due to overlap with city limits • Current data show few enforcement violations, suggesting the rules are understood • There is no clear evidence that current fishing activity is harming kelp in this area • The change is unlikely to provide a meaningful benefit to whales beyond existing protections • The proposal would restrict fishing in an area that was intentionally left open during the original MPA design.

CDFW concluded that the current boundary remains consistent with guidelines and the original planning process.

ADDITIONAL AGENCY AND ELECTED OFFICIAL COMMENTS
In addition to CDFW’s recommendation, Orange County Supervisor Katrina Foley and the City of Dana Point submitted correspondence to the Fish and Game Commission recommending denial of the petition and maintenance of the Marine Protected Area network as currently designated.

ROLE OF THE FISH AND GAME COMMISSION
CDFW’s recommendation is not final. The Fish and Game Commission will:
• Review the petition and CDFW’s analysis
• Accept public comment
• Decide whether to deny the petition or take another action The Commission is scheduled to consider this petition on May 19, 2026.

OPTIONS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL
Option 1 (Recommended): Support CDFW Recommendation (Deny Petition) • Accept the CDFW’s findings
• Maintain existing MPA boundaries
• Recognize that the current system meets State guidelines Option 2: Oppose CDFW Recommendation (Support Petition) • Support expanding the no take boundary to the City’s southern limit • Recommend that the City Council advocate for the change • Request that the Fish and Game Commission not follow CDFW’s recommendation Both options are policy decisions. Neither option affects the City’s regulatory authority over MPAs. 3 of 98

CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON LAGUNA BEACH MARINE PROTECTED AREA

BOUNDARY PETITION AND STATE REVIEW PROCESS
May 12, 2026

BACKGROUND
State Decadal Review of Marine Protected Areas
California manages a network of Marine Protected Areas under the Marine Life Protection Act. These areas are designed to protect ocean habitats and marine life.

The State is required to review this system every ten years. This is called the decadal review. The first review was completed in 2023. Its purpose was to:
• Evaluate how well the MPA system is working
• Identify gaps in science and enforcement
• Recommend improvements
The review did not change any boundaries. Instead, it provided information to guide future decisions.

Public Petition Process
After the review, the Fish and Game Commission opened a process that allowed the public and tribes to submit petitions proposing changes to MPAs.

The process has occurred in several steps:
• 2023: State releases the decadal review and receives public input • December 2023: Petitions submitted
• February 2024: Commission sends petitions to CDFW for review • 2024 to 2026: CDFW evaluates petitions
• March 2026: CDFW releases its evaluation of the Laguna Beach petition • May 2026: Commission scheduled to consider the petition at a public meeting CDFW provides a recommendation, but the Fish and Game Commission makes the final decision.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 because it does not constitute a project. The action consists solely of a recommendation and policy position to a State agency regarding potential State action. The recommendation itself does not approve, authorize, fund, commit the City to, or directly undertake any specific activity that may result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

Alternatively, the action is exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Here, the proposed action is only a recommendation to a State agency for consideration, which will require the State to exercise its own discretionary authority in making its decision, and as a result the City’s action cannot cause any physical changes to the environment. 4 of 98

CONSIDERATION OF CITY POSITION ON LAGUNA BEACH MARINE PROTECTED AREA

BOUNDARY PETITION AND STATE REVIEW PROCESS
May 12, 2026

ATTACHMENTS

1. ESC Recommendation and Justification (Pgs. 6-7)

2. Amended Petition Submitted by Laguna Bluebelt Coalition (Pgs. 8-21)

3. DF&W Analysis and Recommendation of Bluebelt Petition (Pgs. 22-40)

4. Bluebelt Response to DF&W Analysis and Recommendation (Pgs. 41-55) Submitted By:
. Approved: .David A Kiff
Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City
Manager
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Jeremy Frimond, Assistant City Manager
5 of 98

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Environmental Sustainability Committee
April 27, 2026
To: Laguna Beach City Council
From: Environmental Sustainability Committee
Re: Committee Recommendation — Laguna Bluebelt MPA Expansion Petition Dear Members of the Laguna Beach City Council,
The Environmental Sustainability Committee submits this letter to convey the reasoning behind our recommendation that the City Council support the California Department of Fish and Wildlife's decision to deny the Bluebelt petition to expand no-take provisions to Laguna Beach's southern boundary.

This was not a decision taken lightly. The Committee carefully reviewed all materials submitted throughout this process — including the original Bluebelt petition, CDFW's report, and the amended petition filed in response to that report — as well as public testimony representing a genuine diversity of perspectives, from conservation advocates to multigenerational fishing families. What follows is our best articulation of why the evidence, taken as a whole, supports maintaining the MPA network as currently designated.

The Evidence Does Not Yet Support a Permanent Change
Across the petition, the CDFW report, and public testimony, the Committee identified several areas where the data presented was insufficient to justify a permanent boundary change.

The Committee heard compelling testimony about the real-world consequences of MPA expansion on coastal fishing communities (lobster fishermen, recreational anglers, and the fishing and whale-watching economies of neighboring Dana Point). A stewardship model that ignores the livelihoods and traditions of our coastal communities is neither equitable nor, in the long run, sustainable. The report from the CDFW did not include a study of social or economic impacts on our community.

The Committee also recognized that no studies or data were presented identifying the primary cause of kelp loss in those specific areas, or demonstrating how establishing a No Fish zone would affect kelp beds recovery. Additionally, public comments noted the lack of research examining possible contamination in areas south of Aliso Creek when the berm is breached. Because the Southern California current typically flows south (though there are exceptions), this presents a unique concern for the newly proposed MPA that differs from the existing MPA.

Our Recommendation
The Committee respectfully urges the City Council to support CDFW's denial of the petition and to maintain the MPA network as currently designated. We further encourage the City to pursue meaningful engagement with regional partners in exploring stewardship opportunities within the Dana Point State Attachment 1
6 6 of 98
Marine Conservation Area, and specifically at Thousand Steps Beach, by taking an approach that honors both ecological integrity and coastal community resilience.

The Committee calls on the City Council to take an active role in shaping what comes next. Specifically, we ask that the Council:

1. Commission or support additional objective scientific findings for the undesignated stretch of coastline from Table Rock to Laguna's southern boundary — including an independent review of the kelp study methodology and a comprehensive assessment of socioeconomic impacts on local and regional fishing communities.

2. Initiate outreach and education to the fishing community in South Laguna, including lobster fishermen and recreational anglers, to ensure they are informed participants in future discussions.

These are stakeholders with generational knowledge of this coastline, and that knowledge should be part of the process.

3. Explore stewardship models within Laguna Beach and the Dana Point State Marine Conservation Area that balance ecological protection with continued community access, potentially offering an improved stewardship model or framework applicable to South Laguna's undesignated waters.

The Committee supports that original mission of the MPA and believes it is best honored through adaptive, evidence-based management that includes the people who live and work along this coastline.

The goal is not to leave South Laguna in a permanent regulatory void, but to ensure that any future designation is earned through evidence, built through community trust, and designed to sustain both the ecosystem and the people who depend on it.

Respectfully submitted,
Laguna Beach Environmental Sustainability Committee
7 7 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 1 of 6

Tracking Number: (2023-24MPA-AM1)
To request a change to regulations under the authority of the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission), you are required to submit this completed form to: California Fish and Game Commission, (physical address) 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1320, Sacramento, CA 95814, (mailing address) P.O. Box 944209, Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 or via email to [email protected]. Note:

This form is not intended for listing petitions for threatened or endangered species (see Section 670.1 of Title 14).

Incomplete forms will not be accepted. A petition is incomplete if it is not submitted on this form or fails to contain necessary information in each of the required categories listed on this form (Section I).

A petition will be rejected if it does not pertain to issues under the Commission’s authority. A petition may be denied if any petition requesting a functionally equivalent regulation change was considered within the previous 12 months and no information or data is being submitted beyond what was previously submitted. If you need help with this form, please contact Commission staff at (916) 653- 4899 or [email protected].

SECTION I: Required Information.

Please be succinct. Responses for Section I should not exceed five pages

1. Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Name of primary contact person: Mike Beanan
Address:

Telephone number:

Email address:

2. Rulemaking Authority (Required) - Reference to the statutory or constitutional authority of the Commission to take the action requested: Authority cited: Sections 200, 205(c), 265, 399, 1590, 1591, 2860, 2861 and 6750, Fish and Game Code; and Sections 36725(a) and 36725(e), Public Resources Code.

3. Overview (Required) -
a. Extend the Laguna Beach SMCA no-take regulation down to the southern border of the City of Laguna Beach. This area is currently covered by the Dana Point SMCA, which only protects tide pool resources, not the offshore kelp beds.

4. Rationale (Required) -
The revised Petition is based upon input from the Orange County Marine Protected Area Collaborative (OCMPAC) and enforcement recommendations from participants.

The revised Petition locates the southern No Take SMCA border to follow one East/West latitude line to facilitate a consistent offshore boundary. Laguna Beach has recently taken over enforcement of the South Laguna beaches all the way down to the City border. Right now there is confusion due to the different regulations within one city.

This regulation change will make enforcement easier and more consistent because it will create continuity within the city, where the same rules apply to all beaches. All Laguna Beach lifeguards have received MPO training and enforce no-take rules for the Attachment 2
8 8 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 2 of 6
rest of the city beaches. This will result in an increase in outreach and enforcement effectiveness, which supports priority recommendation number 15.

High fishing and lobstering pressure are taking a toll on the remaining kelp beds in South Laguna due to overharvesting and substrate degradation possibly due to anchor chain drag. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 established new requirements for fishery management councils to identify and describe Essential Fish Habitat and to protect, conserve, and enhance these EFH for the benefit of fisheries. A 2002 update to these EFH regulations allowed fishery management councils to designate Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPCs). HAPCs are considered high priority areas for conservation, management, or research because they are important to ecosystem function, sensitive to human activities, stressed by development, or are rare. The rocky reef and kelp beds in this particular area of South Laguna are slightly different than those in the rest of the city because of the steep drop of the cliffs into the ocean. This creates a unique microhabitat where water nutrients are mixed due to wave refraction off the cliffs.

There are kelp forests offshore in these areas that are desperately needed as habitat.

One of the original design considerations for designating MPAs was to “Include within MPAs suitable rocky habitat containing abundant kelp and/or foliose algae” (CMLPA Master Plan for MPAs, Appendix F). When the MPA boundaries were finalized in 2012, the kelp was at its highest extent of coverage since 1967 (see supplemental graph), so the total area of kelp forest was overestimated. The kelp beds off South Laguna have been nearly decimated possibly by overharvesting and anchor chain drag and need to be protected. This, in combination with the potential for additional kelp decline due to warm water and recent wildfire events makes it imperative that we protect as much as possible. The Science Advisory Team (SAT) determined Laguna Beach’s MPA to be the minimum size for success.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act also requires action to be taken here. The south end of the no-take SMCA is visible from shore as a line of lobster trap buoys extending out from the cliffs and beach. One MPA watch volunteer reported 223 buoys off of Table Rock beach on 11/8/2023. This represents a virtual “wall” of dangerous trap lines that interrupt whale migration paths. Whales have been seen frequently traveling very close to shore along this stretch of coastline (see supplemental photo of Thousand Steps beach). A December 2019, Men’s Journal magazine article stated that in the preceding few weeks Dana Point Boat captains had logged more than 40 sightings of gray whale cow-calf pairs in the shallow coves of Laguna Beach. The lobster buoy lines likely create a dangerous obstacle for migrating whales, which are protected under the MMPA.

Residents in South Laguna support the extension of the no-take SMCA as evidenced by the attached letters of support from the Three Arch Bay Community Services District, Orange County Coastkeeper, Laguna Canyon Conservancy, Laguna Bluebelt Coalition, and the South Laguna Civic Association. They feel that it is not equitable to have only the north and central beaches protected. Please see the attached letters of support. The 9 9 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 3 of 6

Laguna Beach City Council also supports further analysis and participation in the process.

SECTION II: Optional Information

5. Date of Petition: 11/29/2023 AMENDED 03/11/2025

6. Category of Proposed Change
☐ Sport Fishing
☐ Commercial Fishing
☐ Hunting
☐ Other, please specify: MPAs, Section 632.

7. The proposal is to: (To determine section number(s), see current year regulation booklet or https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs)
☐ Amend Title 14 Section(s):Westlaw regulations.
☐ Add New Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text. ☐ Repeal Title 14 Section(s): Click here to enter text.

8. If the proposal is related to a previously submitted petition that was rejected, specify the tracking number of the previously submitted petition Or ☐ Not applicable.

9. Effective date: If applicable, identify the desired effective date of the regulation.

If the proposed change requires immediate implementation, explain the nature of the emergency:

This should be implemented as soon as possible. Ancient California Gray Whale Migration is currently being altered due to proliferation of nearshore lobster traps and rope buoys at the southern SMCA boundary.

10. Supporting documentation: Identify and attach to the petition any information supporting the proposal including data, reports and other documents:
(A) Map of proposed Boundary Adjustment.
(B) Letter of support from the Three Arch Bay Community Services District (C)Letter of support from the South Laguna Civic Association (D)Letter of support from the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition (E) Letter of support from Orange County Coastkeeper
(F) Letter of support from the Laguna Canyon Conservancy (G)Graphic from “Status of the Kelp Beds in 2019: Orange & San Diego Counties.

Prepared for the Region Nine Kelp Survey Consortium” by MBC Aquatic Sciences (H)Full Report: “Status of the Kelp Beds in 2019”
(I) Photo of gray whale at Thousand Steps Beach

11. Economic or Fiscal Impacts: Although no socioeconomic data is provided, there may be a fiscal impact on commercial lobster fishers due to reducing their fishing grounds. However, fishing effort will be closer to Dana Point Harbor to save fuel costs and use of ropeless buoys will be encouraged. With removal of lobster buoy lines as migration barriers, whale watching 10 10 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 4 of 6
tours can resume in Laguna Beach ($10 million estimated annual revenues to Dana Point economy). Less anchoring by CPFVs will reduce anchor chain drag damaging local reefs and kelp forests. Estimated resident property values gain an increase of 20% from proximity to a fully protected MPA

12. Forms: If applicable, list any forms to be created, amended or repealed:

SECTION 3: FGC Staff Only
Date received: March 11, 2025
FGC staff action:
☐ Accept - complete
☐ Reject - incomplete
☐ Reject - outside scope of FGC authority
Tracking Number
Date petitioner was notified of receipt of petition and pending action: _______________ Meeting date for FGC consideration: ___________________________ FGC action:
☐ Denied by FGC
☐ Denied - same as petition _____________________
Tracking Number
☐ Granted for consideration of regulation change

11 11 of 98
Revised Boundary Map

12 12 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 5 of 6
Proposed SMCA No Take Rocky Kelp Substrate at Thousand Steps Reef – KelpWatch.org 13 13 of 98
State of California – Fish and Game Commission

PETITION TO THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION FOR REGULATION CHANGE FGC 1 (Rev 06/19) Page 6 of 6
Proposed SMCA No Take Rocky Kelp Substrate at Thousand Steps Reef – KelpWatch.org 14 14 of 98
California Fish and Game Commission January 7, 2025
Marine Resources Committee
[email protected]

Subject: Revision to Laguna Bluebelt Coalition Petition 2023-24 MPA Commissioners and Staff,
The Laguna Bluebelt Coalition seeks to revise the southern boundary for Petition 2023-24MPA to a No Take SMCA (State Marine Conservation Area) for citywide enforcement consistency and protection of essential sea life habitat between Palos Verdes and La Jolla MPAs.

The proposed revised No Take SMCA is within the jurisdiction of the City of Laguna Beach and has widespread support from community organizations and the City’s Environmental and Sustainability Committee. Community support includes the South Laguna Civic Association, Three Arch Bay Service District, Village Laguna, Laguna Canyon Conservancy, Project O, OC Coastkeeper and many individuals.

The City of Laguna Beach has submitted multiple letters seeking to participate in processing the Laguna Bluebelt Petition. In a December 10, 2024 letter to the Commission, Laguna Beach Mayor Rounaghi emphasized the “City looks forward to reviewing the State’s assessment of Petition 2023-24 MPA” and “The City remains committed to actively participate and providing informed input…”.

Presently, the southern area of Laguna Beach is inaccurately designated as within the Dana Point SMCA leading to confusion about place names and take regulations. The Petition will simplify the no take regulation for the entire city of Laguna Beach, address inaccurate place names and restore Laguna Beach as the correct jurisdiction for this area. The revised No Take SMCA boundary will be identified by the prominent bluff top outcropping at Three Arch Bay consistent with the Laguna Beach City Limits.

The Petition reflects the MLPA’s Adaptive Management Objectives to:
• Protect the structure and function of marine ecosystems • Improve native marine life populations, including those of economic value • Ensure minimal disturbance while allowing for sustainable opportunities for recreation, education and research • Ensure comprehensive representation of all key habitats, including unique habitats • Use learning acquired through administration of the MLPP to adaptively manage the objectives, management measures, enforcement efforts, and scientific guidelines to inform management decisions • MPAs function as a cohesive statewide network 15 15 of 98
Size and Spacing Considerations
The Science Advisory Team (SAT) spacing requirements determined Laguna Beach is an essential linkage for larval dispersal among Southern California’s MPAs. Guidelines set a maximum distance and minimum size for each MPA.

Maximum Shoreline Distance: To ensure the persistence of a suite of species in an MPA network, the maximum distance between MPAs was determined to be within 50 -100 km (31 -62 miles). A network of MPAs 20 km (12 miles) in length met the upper boundary of the preferred size guidelines and led to population persistence for a larger set of movement combinations. With MPAs this large, decreasing spacing produced a more substantial effect. MPAs of 20 km (12 mile) shoreline length protected a much larger range of movement combinations when spaced 50 km (31 miles) apart (51.8%) than when spaced 100 km apart (21.6%). This increase occurred because persistence of populations with large mean larval dispersal was maintained through a network effect, rather than self-persistence. Laguna Beach’s MPAs maximum distance are 50 miles from Palos Verdes MPAs and 72 miles from La Jolla MPAs to meet this goal.

In summary, bigger MPAs yield better results for protecting marine life. Laguna Beach is an excellent candidate when you combine community support and the City’s present MPA enforcement measures to be able to achieve noteworthy success.

Minimum Alongshore Extent: To best protect adult populations, based on adult neighborhood sizes and movement patterns, Guidelines conclude MPAs should have an alongshore extent of at least 3-6 miles of coastline, and preferably 6-12.5 miles. Larger MPAs would be needed to fully protect marine birds, mammals, and migratory fish. Combined and simplified, the Guideline indicates that MPAs should have a minimum area of 9-18 square miles, or a preferred area of 18-36 square miles.

The Revised Petition to include full protection of all of Laguna Beach’s MPAs is necessary to comply with SAT Guidelines since, once approved, it will protect 7 miles of coastline slightly within the preferred alongshore extent (6-12 miles). A fully protected Laguna MPA will also grow to 11 square miles, the minimum preferred area (9-18 square miles).

Once approved, the citywide and a fully protected MPA will comply with SAT Guidelines for preferred coastline and size. This will be complimented by local, well-established education and enforcement capabilities to support the continued success for Laguna Beach’s MPAs.

Stakeholder Collaboration
The Laguna Bluebelt Coalition, a statewide model for MPA Collaboratives since 2009, has met with key stakeholders through OCMPAC including fishing groups, tribal representatives, game wardens and others to revise Petition 2023-24MPA to accommodate the local lobster fishery. By adjusting the southern SMCA to follow the east/west latitude line at the request of the Dana Point lobster group, placement of lobster traps is facilitated by a consistent GPS latitude line to avoid encroachment into the proposed southern Laguna Beach No Take SMCA.
16 16 of 98
Revised Boundary Map

17 17 of 98
Economic Considerations
While commercial fishing businesses generally object to MPAs, it is worth noting that Dana Wharf has shifted operations away from fishing to pursue new economic opportunities as the Whale and Dolphin Watching Capital of the World – America’s first Whale Heritage Site. The designation of just over 1 square mile of a new No Take SMCA is just a fraction of the present Dana Wharf fishing grounds and will not measurably impact their annual sportfishing and whale tour revenues. Dana Wharf presently operates large fishing grounds spanning hundreds of square miles from Dana Point south to Camp Pendleton and west to Catalina and San Clemente Islands.

See: The Ultimate Guide To Fishing In Dana Point, CA | Dana Wharf Essential Marine Habitats
With steep coastal bluffs, isolated coves and offshore reefs, Laguna Beach’s southern coastline provides unique habitats for coastal sea life nurseries. Kelp forests populate local reefs throughout the city while dolphin and whales routinely transit the area for foraging opportunities and annual migration.

Laguna Beach’s Essential Kelp Habitat
The City of Laguna Beach has a long ocean tradition and is committed to protecting marine resources. All Marine Safety Lifeguards are qualified as Marine Protection Officers to maintain a robust education and enforcement program.

The Laguna Beach General Plan and Policies recognize the value of coastal resources (see References).

The success of Laguna’s Marine Protected Areas over the past 12 years is clear evidence that sea life can be protected and restored in an urban environment. The City’s commitment to manage over 6 million visitors continues to educate and motivate compliance with all MPA regulations and policies. Revising 18 18 of 98
the southern SMCA boundary for full citywide protection will support the community’s dedication to achieve the goals and objectives of the State’s Marine Life Protection Act.

The Laguna Bluebelt Coalition appreciates the dedicated role of the Fish and Game Commission to serve as a global leader in advancing the State’s recovery of sea life for present and future generations.

Mike Beanan
w/Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Julianne E Steers, Sargo School
19 19 of 98
References
Laguna Beach General Plan and Policies
Action 1.1.1 Protect natural assets and open-space areas to maintain their role as “carbon sinks.” Policy 4.1 Policy 4.2 Develop and adopt a program to protect sensitive coastal resources.

Action 4.1.1 Compile an inventory of the City’s coastal resources and prepare a Coastal Resources Protection Program.

Action 4.2.2 Enforce State’s Marine Life Management Act and identified Marine Life Protected areas within the City and local regulations for the protection of marine life and intertidal resources and to conduct educational and outreach programs.

Action 10.7.2 Periodically review the City’s Water Quality Control Ordinance and related policies for protecting marine resources and update as appropriate.

In cooperation with the State Department of Fish and Game, a Marine Preserve was created by the State in 1968 for a portion of the City's shoreline particularly rich in tidepool life. In addition to the Marine Preserve, the State, in conjunction with the City, established an Ecological Reserve in 1974, creating, in essence, a marine sanctuary, or a protected "aquarium".

Policies 2-A Encourage the expansion of the Marine Life Refuges and the designation of particularly unique or ecologically sensitive coastal areas as Ecological Reserves (such as seal and bird rocks), pursuant to the provisions of the State Department of Fish and Game. 2-F Develop a local enforcement program, pending funding availability, consisting of shoreline protection regulations and citation authority for Marine Safety personnel. 2-H Support restoration of offshore kelp beds.
41 Watershed Protection and Restoration Promote the protection and restoration of offshore, coastal, lake, stream or wetland waters and habitats and preserve them to the maximum extent practicable in their natural state. Oppose activities that may degrade the quality of offshore, coastal, lake, stream or wetland waters and habitat and promote the rehabilitation of impaired waters and habitat.

Develop an enforcement program for the protection of marine life resources.

Promote an expanded Marine Life Refuge.

Marine Resources: A small estuary occurs at the mouth of Aliso Creek. As recently as 1976 this estuary supported the Tidewater Goby, a species considered uncommon and declining in numbers due to habitat loss. A resource inventory included in the Orange County Conservation Element identifies the presence of the South Laguna Marine Life Refuge in the South Laguna area. The refuge, near the mouth of Aliso Creek, was given refuge status by the California Fish and Game Commission because the animal 20 20 of 98
populations in the rocky intertidal habitat had not been subjected to the collecting pressures that had occurred in other areas along the south coast.
21 21 of 98
California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s
Evaluation of 2023 Decadal Management Review Marine
Protected Area Petition:

March 2026
Expand Boundaries of Laguna Beach No-take State Marine
Conservation Area (2023-24MPA_AM)
I. PETITION SUMMARY
CFGC Tracking Number 2023-24MPA_AM
Petition Contact/Affiliation Mike Beanan, Laguna Bluebelt Coalition Number of Proposed Actions 1
Affected MPAs Laguna Beach No-Take and Dana Point State Marine Conservation Areas (SMCAs)
Petition Summary Extend the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA southern boundary to the southern border of the City of Laguna
Beach, which will require modification of the northern
boundary of Dana Point SMCA (modified boundaries as
amended).

Link to StoryMap page 2023-24MPA_AM
Attachment 3
22 22 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
2 II. CDFW RECOMMENDATIONS AND BRIEF JUSTIFICATION
Note: If a change to the Marine Protected Area (MPA) regulations is not needed to address the proposed change, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) did not evaluate the proposed change using the framework. However, CDFW may recommend an alternative pathway to achieving the desired outcome of the proposed change.

Petition Action ID and
Proposed Action
Petitioner’s Stated Rationale
and Brief Justification for
Proposed Actions
CDFW Recommendation and
Brief Justification
2023-24MPA_AM1
Extend the Laguna Beach
No-take SMCA southern
boundary to the southern
border of the City of Laguna
Beach, which will require
modification of the northern
boundary of Dana Point
SMCA (modified boundaries
as amended).

The petitioner’s stated intent
for the proposed change is:

Since the Marine Life
Protection Act (MLPA)
Initiative planning process,
the City of Laguna Beach’s
assumed jurisdiction over
the city’s southern beaches
from the County of Orange.

This regulation change will
make enforcement easier
and more consistent, better
protect kelp (Macrocystis
pyrifera) beds in South
Laguna from fishing and the
potential effects of anchor
chain drag, and reduce
whale entanglement risks
from spiny lobster (Panulirus
interruptus) trap lines.

Deny.

The proposed change to expand the Laguna Beach Notake SMCA and thereby reduce the size of the Dana Point SMCA, does not address an enforcement challenge,
advance adaptive management recommendations from
the Decadal Management Review (DMR), address a current
or emerging MPA management challenge, or align with the original intent of these MPAs as established during the MLPA Initiative planning process. The proposed change is unlikely to benefit migrating whales or have a biologically
meaningful impact on kelp at this location beyond what is already offered by the Dana Point SMCA. The proposal
would change the boundary so that it no longer aligns with key Feasibility Guidelines, which would likely compromise enforceability. The proposed change would also
unnecessarily restrict an existing important fishing ground that was deliberately contemplated during the MLPA
Initiative planning process.
23 23 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
3 III. BIN 2 PETITION GROUPING: IDENTIFY TRIBALLY-LED PETITIONS The 2023 MPA Petition Companion Document (Attachment 1) includes a summary of the process for identifying Tribally-led petitions, CDFW’s outreach to all California Native American tribes1 (tribes) throughout the petitions process, and a summary of outreach and engagement with Tribally-led petitioners. Tribally-led petitions were evaluated with the CDFW 2023 MPA Bin 2 Petition Evaluation Framework.

Tribal Components Questions Answer and Explanation
Was the petition submitted by a California Native American tribe, representative designated by a tribe or tribal
organization, or have a tribal co-sponsor? If yes,
a. Does the proposed change explicitly aim to advance
tribal co-management, subsistence harvesting,
stewardship, and/or provide a tribal benefit through
recognizing the cultural significance of an area?
b. Is the proposed regulatory change explicitly linked to a tribe or tribes? (i.e. tribal exemption, tribal take only MPA, or new MPA for co-management).

No, This petition was not submitted by a tribe or
representative designated by a tribe or tribal
organization, and it does not have a tribal co-sponsor. 1 California Native American tribe is the preferred term to use per the Governor's Office of Tribal Affairs when generally mentioning tribes of California, both federally and non-federally recognized.
24 24 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
4 IV. PETITION EVALUATION
EVALUATION NARRATIVE AND OVERVIEW FOR 2023-24MPA_AM1
The petitioner proposes extending the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA to align with the city limits of Laguna Beach. In 2023, The County of Orange transferred the county jurisdiction of the beaches in the area of South Laguna Beach to the City of Laguna Beach. The primary aim of the proposed change is to address the petitioner’s stated problem, “the southern area of Laguna Beach is inaccurately designated as within Dana Point SMCA leading to confusion about place names and take regulations.” The petitioner also asserts the kelp beds off South Laguna Beach need protection from overharvesting and anchor chain drag and mentions concerns that lobster fishing activities in the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA pose a threat to the sensitive kelp forest habitat and interrupt gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) migration. The petitioner states that extending the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA will make MPA enforcement easier, will protect kelp from anchor drag on the rocky substrate, and will limit gray whale interactions with commercial lobster trap lines in the area. Although the petitioner asserts the proposed actions align with one or more of the MLPA Goals/Master Plan objectives, CDFW’s evaluation finds the proposal:
• Would not address an enforcement challenge,
• Would not measurably improve the performance of the Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve (SMR) and Laguna Beach No-Take SMCA MPA cluster beyond what these MPAs were designed to provide,
• Would conflict with the original intent of the Dana Point SMCA, which was to maintain intertidal protections while allowing for take of lobster, urchin, and finfish2,
• Would eliminate nearly half of the fishing grounds within the boundaries of the Dana Point SMCA and effectively end all fishing opportunities within Laguna Beach city limits,
• Does not address a current or emerging MPA management challenge, and • Would not advance management of the MPA Network.

CDFW’s Marine Enforcement District (MED) confirmed that the perceived confusion regarding different MPA regulations for Laguna Beach No-take SMCA and Dana Point SMCA that fall within the city limits of Laguna Beach does not pose an enforcement challenge. CDFW enforcement data for 2024 shows fewer than 20 violations for both Laguna No-take SMCA and Dana Point SMCA compared to Bolsa Chica No-take SMCA with 80 violations, and they are not among south coast MPAs with the highest numbers of violations. These results suggest that most people using these MPAs are aware of and 2 Any species of bony fish or cartilaginous fish (sharks, skates and rays). 25 25 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
5 understand the regulations. Changing the boundary 15 years after implementation without significant ecological benefits to the MPA Network (see below) would likely result in increased confusion and enforcement challenges, which would require significant investments in outreach and enforcement efforts.

The existing boundary aligns with a readily determinable line of latitude, and a prominent coastal outcrop of nearshore rocks, which serves as a clear marker for both off-shore and shore-based users. The proposed new boundary deviates from the CDFW Feasibility Guidelines (See Question 10 in Attachment 1) as the boundary would not fall on an even line of latitude and it is unclear if there is a clear visual marker for shore-based users. The petitioner states that the amended boundary would line up, “with a prominent bluff top outcropping at Three Arch Bay consistent with Laguna Beach city limits.” However, the coordinates provided in the amendment are slightly beyond this point into the Dana Point city limits. Since implementation of California’s MPA Network, targeted legislative and regulatory refinements have been identified to align MPAs with their original intent, clarify or correct provisions, or address priority management and enforcement issues.

This includes two regulatory packages that specifically clarified and corrected MPA boundaries throughout the MPA Network following a Network-wide assessment to ensure maximum alignment with the Feasibility Guidelines, improve boundary clarity for shorebased and boat-based users, and ultimately boundary enforceability (Appendix G of the DMR). The current southern boundary at Laguna Beach No-take SMCA was intentionally set and refined through three prior regulatory processes; moving the boundary as proposed would result in increased confusion and enforcement challenges.

The boundary change could be reconsidered if there were significant ecological benefits to MPA Network. However, ending fishing activity alone (by extending the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA boundary) is unlikely to result in meaningful and sustained kelp recovery and/or protection without a clear understanding of the site-specific ecological drivers of kelp loss. While anchor drag and other artifacts of fishing efforts, such as setting lobster traps, may cause damage to the rocky reef that is suitable habitat for giant kelp, it is unclear if this activity is the primary contributor to kelp loss and/or hindering kelp recovery in the northern portion of the Dana Point SMCA. Temporal trends in persistent kelp canopy within the Dana Point SMCA show stable kelp canopy in areas where kelp is present from 2010-2016. Kelp persistence decreased in the years between 2017-2023 following the 2014-2016 Marine Heatwave, which had widespread effects on California’s coastal ecosystems, both inside and outside MPAs (CDFW 2022, Smith et al. 2023, Zeigler et al. 2023, Ortiz-Villa et al. 2025)
3 . Given that persistence of kelp forests in the Dana Point SMCA was mostly stable prior to the heatwave, despite fishing activities continuing in the 3 See California MPA Petitions SeaSketch platform for kelp persistence mapping:
https://www.seasketch.org/california/app
26 26 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
6 area, there are likely multiple factors driving kelp presence and recovery potential in Dana Point SMCA. Statewide kelp restoration and management efforts should target site-specific drivers of kelp loss and be guided by the Kelp Restoration and Management Plan (KRMP), which is in development.

The proposed change is unlikely to reduce or prevent whale entanglements in this area.

It is possible that lobster fishery interactions with gray whales may occur when the whales are migrating through the area. NOAA Fisheries’ whale entanglement database4 reports that gray whale entanglements along their migration route have occurred in California along the Southern California Bight, but exact locations of entanglements are difficult to obtain because the location reported refers to where the whale is first sighted, which may not directly correspond with the location of the initial entanglement.

Extending the boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of the Dana Point SMCA would likely shift lobster fishing effort further offshore outside of the MPAs, and/or shift fishing efforts south to the new boundary. In either case, this is still within the path of migrating whales. Thus, reducing whale entanglement risk in this area is not likely to occur with the proposed change.

The proposed change is unlikely to measurably improve the performance of the Laguna Beach SMR and Laguna Beach No-take SMCA MPA cluster beyond the benefits these MPAs currently provide. The Laguna Beach MPAs, which include Crystal Cove SMCA, Laguna Beach SMR and No-take SMCA, and Dana Point SMCA, were carefully designed to meet both ecosystem and human-use needs in Orange County. These MPAs were intended to act together to maintain and expand some of the historical protections that were in place before the passage of the MLPA, preserve the marine natural heritage and deep connection the surrounding communities have with the coastal resources in the area, and continue to provide recreational and commercial fishing opportunities (MLPA 2009a). The Laguna Beach SMR and No-take SMCA were designed as an MPA cluster to meet the MLPA Initiative Science Advisory Team (SAT) guidelines for size, spacing, and habitat replication and thus, meet specific goals to protect natural diversity and enhance ecosystem function. These goals remain relevant today. Consequently, expanding the boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into a portion of the Dana Point SMCA is not anticipated to improve the design of these MPAs or the overall design of the MPA cluster.

Finally, the original intent of the Dana Point SMCA was to preserve recreational and commercial fishing opportunities for certain species while continuing the legacy protection of rocky intertidal habitat that was in place prior to the passage of the MLPA 4 NOAA National whale Entanglement Reports 2017-2024: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marinelife-distress/large-whale-entanglement-response#national-entanglement-reports 27 27 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
7 (MLPA 2009a). The Dana Point SMCA is within the most utilized fishing block by the commercial lobster fishery out of Dana Point Harbor (Fig. 1) and the MPA provides the only opportunity to recreationally fish within the city limits of Laguna Beach. A detailed analysis of the socioeconomic impacts of this proposed change is an information gap.

However, based on landings and CDFW knowledge of commercial and recreational use of the area, impacts are anticipated to be significant. Thus, implementation of the proposed change is likely to result in significant fishery impacts, with limited ecological benefit beyond what the existing Network provides.

In summary, the proposed change is unlikely to improve enforcement and compliance with the MPA regulations, benefit migrating whales, or have a biologically meaningful impact on kelp at this location beyond what is already offered by the Dana Point SMCA, and it would unnecessarily restrict an important fishing ground that was also contemplated during the MLPA Initiative planning process.

RECOMMENDATION FOR 2023-24MPA_AM1
Given these considerations, and the information in the evaluation below, CDFW recommends California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) DENY Petition 2023- 24MPA that includes the proposal to extend the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA to align with the city limits of Laguna Beach.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS
2023-24MPA_1_AM1: Extend the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA southern boundary to the southern border of the City of Laguna Beach, which will require modification of the northern boundary of Dana Point SMCA (modified boundaries as amended).

QUESTION 1: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE SUPPORT THE MPA NETWORK IN MEETING ONE

OR MORE OF THE MLPA GOALS AND ALIGN WITH MPA MASTER PLAN ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES?
The MLPA Goals and Master Plan objectives are inextricably linked and act as the foundational tools that CDFW utilizes for effective adaptive management of the MPA Network. Individual MPAs in the Network were not necessarily designed to address all six Goals of the MLPA but instead act as an important component of a functioning Network that was designed to holistically address the MLPA Goals. As such, CDFW has evaluated this action within the broader adaptive management framework and how the proposed action may or may not align with the MLPA Goals/Master Plan objectives and advance 28 28 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
8 MPA Network management. See Question 1 of Attachment 1 for the MLPA Goals and Master Plan objectives.

The petitioner asserts that expanding the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into a portion of neighboring Dana Point SMCA is consistent with MLPA Goals 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 related to enhancing natural diversity; sustaining marine life populations; providing recreational, educational, and research opportunities; protecting marine natural heritage; and ensuring adequate enforcement.

However, Laguna Beach No-take SMCA is part of a larger array of MPAs that includes (from north to south) Crystal Cove SMCA, Laguna Beach SMR, Laguna Beach No-take SMCA, and Dana Point SMCA. This array of MPAs was designed to meet multiple MLPA Goals (1-4) by maintaining and expanding some existing protections, preserving natural marine heritage, and allowing some recreational and commercial take in popular fishing areas. Together, the Laguna Beach SMR and Laguna Beach No-take SMCA were designed as an MPA cluster to protect marine resources while meeting as many of the MLPA Initiative SAT guidelines as possible. The SMR and No-take SMCA currently provide representation of a variety of rocky and sandy habitats, including diverse rocky intertidal and shallow kelp reefs, as was intended during the MLPA Initiative planning process.

Expanding the fully protected area is not expected to improve the design of these MPAs or the MPA Network.

The MPAs surrounding Laguna Beach SMR and Laguna Beach No-take SMCA were also designed to improve recreational and educational opportunities through recreational fishing and tidepooling (Goal 3). Expanding the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of the Dana Point SMCA would effectively end recreational take of lobster, urchin, and finfish by hook-and-line and spear and eliminate recreational fishing opportunities within the city limits of Laguna Beach. Furthermore, with ample opportunity for visitors to participate in well-established educational programs that exist in Crystal Cove SMCA/State Park and Dana Point SMCA, it is unlikely that expanding the No-take SMCA into Dana Point SMCA would improve these already robust educational opportunities.

The original intent of the array of MPAs adjacent to the City of Laguna Beach recognized the importance of marine cultural heritage and protecting the unique habitats (Goal 4) in the area. However, it is unclear how expanding the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA would further recognize the importance of marine cultural heritage or better protect the unique intertidal habitat that the Dana Point SMCA was designed to protect. The boundary expansion would not afford the unique rocky intertidal habitat at this site more regulatory protection. While extending the No-take SMCA may provide some protection for single species that utilize the kelp forest habitat and are currently legal to take in the 29 29 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
9 Dana Point SMCA, such as lobster and urchin, there is no evidence that this harvest is negatively affecting kelp forest persistence at this site.

Finally, the petition asserts that expanding the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA would simplify enforcement by aligning with the southern city limits of Laguna Beach (Goal/objective 5) and alleviate perceived confusion due to different regulations within the city limits. However, temporal trends in MED enforcement data show few violations in the Laguna Beach SMR, No-take SMCA, and Dana Point SMCA, which suggests that most people using these MPAs are aware of, and abide by, the current regulations.

QUESTION 2A: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE ADVANCE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE DECADAL MANAGEMENT REVIEW?
The proposed change would not significantly advance any of the adaptive management recommendations in the DMR.

The petitioner’s primary justification for extending the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA is that since these MPAs were implemented, enforcement jurisdiction in the southern beaches in the area was transferred from the County of Orange to the City of Laguna Beach. The petitioner asserts that the proposed regulation change will make MPA enforcement easier and more consistent. The petitioner asserts that this will increase effectiveness of outreach, education, and enforcement, which supports DMR Recommendation 15 regarding pursuing the most effective outreach and education tools to increase MPA awareness and compliance. However, a well-established tidepool docent program exists in Dana Point SMCA that provides extensive MPA education on these MPAs, including Laguna Beach No-take SMCA. The Orange County MPA Council, a chapter of the MPA Collaborative Network, is also extremely active in local outreach events, providing the public in Laguna Beach with detailed information about the MPA Management Program and local MPA regulations. Thus, it is unlikely that expanding the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into Dana Point SMCA would improve these already robust educational efforts.

Additionally, changing the boundary has potential to present education and enforcement challenges during any transition period to update outreach materials, particularly because these MPAs occur in a popular area for coastal visitation. CDFW recommends targeted coordination between local allied agencies and MED on MPA enforcement to address any outstanding and potential compliance challenges in lieu of a regulatory change to the MPA boundaries. See Question 2A of Attachment 1 for the DMR and adaptive management Recommendations.
30 30 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
10 QUESTION 2B: IF NOT, DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE ADDRESS A CURRENT OR EMERGING MPA MANAGEMENT CHALLENGE?
Since implementation of the MPA Network, the County of Orange ceded jurisdiction of the county-managed beaches within the city limits to the City of Laguna Beach, which could pose a shift in local enforcement efforts and capacity.

However, CDFW recommends targeted coordination between local allied agencies and MED on MPA enforcement in lieu of a regulatory change to the MPA boundaries. Additionally, the petition states that the proposed change would benefit kelp and protect migrating whales from entanglement. However, the proposed change is unlikely to benefit migrating whales or have a biologically meaningful impact on kelp at this location beyond what is already offered by the Dana Point SMCA. Therefore, the proposed change does not address a current or emerging MPA management challenge in a way that would benefit the long-term adaptive management of the statewide MPA Network, without compromising the original intent of the affected MPAs and design of the Network.

QUESTION 3: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT EXISTING CFGC NON-MPA REGULATIONS, PERMITS, OR LEASES (E.G., KELP LEASES, AQUACULTURE LEASES, EXPERIMENTAL FISHING PERMITS)?
No. CDFW does not anticipate that CFGC would need to make conforming changes to other regulations, permits, or leases in response to the proposed change to these MPA regulations.

QUESTION 4: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT EXISTING

REGULATIONS, PERMITS, LEASES, OR MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES OF ANY OTHER AGENCY OR ENTITY?
Yes. State Lands Commission (SLC): Laguna Beach No-take SMCA would overlap with State SLC active lease number 5139 for a wastewater outfall pipeline and ballast rock.

This lease expires in 2054. The regulations for both the Dana Point SMCA and Laguna Beach No-take SMCA allow maintenance of existing artificial structures. It is unclear whether the proposed change would have direct or indirect effects on SLC’s regulatory or management activities, or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s regulatory activities for the wastewater outfall.

City of Laguna Beach: CDFW shares jurisdiction of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA and Dana Point SMCA with the City of Laguna Beach and implementation of the proposed changes would require CDFW to coordinate enforcement, updates to signage, and outreach efforts.
31 31 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
11 This list may not be exhaustive. The proposed change may have the potential to affect existing regulations, permits, leases, or management activities of Tribal governments, other agencies, and entities not identified here.

QUESTION 5: ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION GAPS THAT NEED TO BE FILLED TO INFORM THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE?
No. CDFW has sufficient information to evaluate and make a recommendation on this proposal. When evaluating this petition, CDFW reviewed the information in the petition, as well as information including, but not limited to:
• MED citation and compliance data, which indicate no major enforcement challenges,
• Kelp persistence over time in the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA, • Historical information on why the boundary between Laguna Beach No-take SMCA, and Dana Point SMCA was placed in the current location and the purpose of the array of MPAs and how they work together to meet MLPA Goals/Master Plan objectives,
• NOAA Fisheries whale entanglement data, and
• Internal consultation with subject matter experts on fisheries in the area and associated data.

QUESTION 6: ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT MANAGEMENT GAPS THAT NEED TO BE FILLED TO INFORM THE EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE?
No. CDFW has sufficient management information to proceed with the evaluation of this proposed change, including the foundational principles of the MLPA and information guiding management of MPAs and relevant fisheries.

QUESTION 7A: WAS THE PROPOSED CHANGE CONSIDERED DURING THE MLPA INITIATIVE

PLANNING PROCESS OR THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF MPAS AROUND THE NORTHERN CHANNEL ISLANDS?
Yes. A similar proposal was considered and extensively vetted and discussed during the MLPA Initiative planning process. The South Coast Regional Stakeholder Group proposal 3 recommended that Laguna Beach SMR extend farther south than the proposed boundary change in this petition (MLPA 2009b). CDFW presented several options in the Initial Statement of Reasons document during the rulemaking, and CFGC chose to adopt Option 2R, which aligned the southern boundary of the No-take SMCA with the division between beaches under city and county jurisdiction at that time, as well as a prominent coastal outcrop of nearshore rocks (CFGC 2010).
32 32 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
12 QUESTION 7B: IS THERE NEW INFORMATION AVAILABLE, CHANGING CONDITIONS SINCE

THE MLPA IMPLEMENTATION PHASE, AND/OR INFORMATION PRESENTED IN THE DMR THAT WARRANTS REEVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE?
No. Since implementation of the MPA Network, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to transfer ownership and management of South Laguna Beaches to the City of Laguna Beach in 2023, so the jurisdictional line no longer exists. However, extending the boundary southward would not address the petitioner’s stated problem and thus, does not warrant reevaluation of the proposed change. The existing boundary still aligns with a prominent coastal outcrop of nearshore rocks, which serves as a clear marker for both off-shore and shore-based users and was intentionally referenced during the MLPA Initiative planning process.

QUESTION 8: IF THE PROPOSED CHANGE AFFECTS AN EXISTING MPA, DOES THE PROPOSED

CHANGE ALIGN WITH THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE MPA IDENTIFIED DURING THE MLPA

INITIATIVE PLANNING PROCESS OR THE IMPLEMENTATION PROCESS OF MPAS AROUND THE NORTHERN CHANNEL ISLANDS?
No. The proposed change to extend the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA does not align with the original intent of the MPA identified during the MLPA Initiative planning process. The Laguna Beach Notake SMCA was designed to serve as a habitat replicate (in a cluster with the Laguna SMR) for a variety of habitats, including kelp forests and sandy beaches.

The proposed extension of the No-take SMCA boundary to the south into the neighboring Dana Point SMCA would conflict with the original intent of that MPA, which was to maintain intertidal protections while allowing for take of lobster, urchin, and finfish. The proposed change would eliminate nearly half of the fishing grounds within the boundaries of the Dana Point SMCA and effectively end all fishing opportunities within Laguna Beach city limits.

QUESTION 9: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE IMPROVE INDIVIDUAL MPA OR MPA NETWORK DESIGN SO THAT IT BETTER ALIGNS WITH OR MEETS THE MPA SCIENCE GUIDELINES? The MLPA requires that the design of individual MPAs and the statewide Network be based on the best readily available science and that MPAs be of adequate size, number, protection level, and location to meet MLPA Goals. The science guidelines developed by the Science Advisory Team and outlined in the Master Plan were created specifically to provide this scientific foundation and serve as the starting point for evaluating alternative MPA proposals. Alignment with these guidelines depends on LOP, which is determined by allowed take, and spatial configuration. More specifically, these 33 33 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
13 guidelines require that an MPA must be at least 9 square miles and meet one of the three highest LOPs (i.e., Very High, High, or Moderate-high) to contribute to ecological goals such as habitat replication and representation.

The MLPA requires that the design of individual MPAs and the statewide Network be based on the best readily available science and that MPAs be of adequate size, number, protection level, and location to meet MLPA Goals. The science guidelines developed by the SAT and outlined in the Master Plan were created specifically to provide this scientific foundation and serve as the starting point for evaluating alternative MPA proposals.

Alignment with these guidelines depends on LOP, which is determined by allowed take, and spatial configuration. More specifically, these guidelines require that an MPA must be at least nine square miles and meet one of the three highest LOPs (i.e., Very High, High, or Moderate-high) to contribute to ecological Goals such as habitat replication and representation.

Laguna Beach No-take SMCA, together with neighboring Laguna Beach SMR, currently meet both minimum criteria (Table 1). The proposed change would increase the area protected in Laguna Beach No-take SMCA for kelp, beach, rocky intertidal, and hard and soft bottom (0-30 and 30-100 m depth) habitats, which may improve the design of this MPA. However, this would not necessarily enhance the functioning of the MPA Network beyond that of the current design because the additional protected area would not contribute to additional habitat replication or representation at the Network scale.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed change would not improve the design of the MPA Network or enhance alignment with MLPA Science Guidelines. See Question 9 of Attachment 1 for the MLPA Science Guidelines and additional context.

QUESTION 10A: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE ALIGN WITH CDFW FEASIBILITY GUIDELINES?
No. The petition aims to align the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA with the city limits of Laguna Beach. However, this does not fall on an even line of latitude.

The amended coordinates provided by the petitioner overlap with the northern edge of the Dana Point city limits which could increase regulatory and enforcement complexity for this MPA across different city jurisdictions. The existing boundary aligns with a readily determinable line of latitude, and a prominent coastal outcrop of nearshore rocks, which serves as a clear marker for both off-shore and shore-based users and was intentionally referenced during the MLPA Initiative planning process. Furthermore, the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA was not identified as needing correction during the past adaptive management regulation packages that refined many of the MPA boundaries based on a Network-wide assessment of enforcement challenges. See Question 10a of Attachment 1 for the CDFW Feasibility Guidelines. 34 34 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
14 QUESTION 10B: IF NOT, IS THERE A RATIONALE FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE

PROPOSED CHANGE OR AN ALTERNATIVE THAT COULD MEET THE INTENT BUT BETTER ALIGN WITH FEASIBILITY GUIDELINES?
No. There is no rationale for moving forward with the proposed change or an alternative.

QUESTION 11: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE MAINTAIN OR IMPROVE ENFORCEABILITY OF MPA REGULATIONS?
No. The petitioner asserts that expanding the southern boundary of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA to align with the southern city limits of Laguna Beach would simplify enforcement in the area and alleviate perceived confusion due to different existing regulations within the city limits. However, the amended coordinates provided by the petitioner overlap with the northern edge of the Dana Point city limits which could increase regulatory and enforcement complexity for this MPA across different city jurisdictions. Furthermore, based on MED enforcement data, temporal trends in MPA violations show few violations in the Laguna Beach SMR, Laguna Beach No-take SMCA, and Dana Point SMCA, suggesting that most people using these MPAs are aware of, and comply with, the existing MPA regulations.

While No-take regulations are generally easier to enforce and for the public to understand, expanding the No-take regulations into an existing MPA and split across city jurisdictions where some consumptive uses are allowed has potential to introduce enforcement challenges where none currently exist.

QUESTION 12: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE SIMPLIFY REGULATORY LANGUAGE OR ENHANCE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDING WITHOUT CHANGING THE INTENT OF THE MPA? No. The proposed change does not simplify regulatory language or enhance public understanding, and it would change the intent of the MPA. Although the petitioner’s intent for the extension of the Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of the Dana Point SMCA is to enhance public understanding, it has potential to introduce public confusion in an area where most people using these MPAs are aware of, and comply with, the existing MPA regulations (see response to Question 11 regarding enforceability).

QUESTION 13: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE PROTECTION OF MARINE RESOURCES?
Yes. The proposed change to expand the southern boundary of Laguna Beach No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA would increase the area protected within a portion of the existing Dana Point SMCA (Table 1) and hence, offer increased 35 35 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
15 protection to the habitats contained within and to the species for which take is currently allowed, including lobster, sea urchin, finfish, and coastal pelagic species (CPS)5.

QUESTION 14: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE PROVIDE MORE EQUITABLE ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES (E.G., FISHING, EDUCATIONAL, AND/OR OTHER RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES) FOR TRADITIONALLY UNDERSERVED OR MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES? See Question 14 of Attachment 1.

QUESTION 15: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT CONSUMPTIVE AND/OR NON-CONSUMPTIVE ACTIVITIES? IF SO, HOW? Yes. Extending the southern boundary of Laguna No-take SMCA into the northern portion of Dana Point SMCA would end the existing take allowances, including recreational take of finfish by hook-and-line or spearfishing, lobster, and urchin, and the commercial take of spiny lobster, urchin, and CPS, in a portion of the SMCA where these activities are currently allowed. It would also end any consumptive uses within the city limits of Laguna Beach.

The Dana Point SMCA, including the northern portion that is proposed to be closed to fishing, is a very popular location for recreational shore fishing and is the only area open to fishing within the city limits of Laguna Beach. In addition to impacts to shore anglers, CDFW anticipates impacts to the commercial lobster fishery, the commercial sea urchin fishery, and the recreational commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) fleet. The proposed closed area overlaps with CDFW commercial fishing block 757. Commercial landings data summaries indicate block 757 is highly valuable to the commercial lobster fleet (Fig. 1).

QUESTION 16: IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE CONSISTENT WITH THE CFGC JUSTICE, EQUITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION POLICY?
See Question 16 of Attachment 1.

QUESTION 17: IS THE PROPOSED CHANGE CONSISTENT WITH THE CFGC COASTAL FISHING COMMUNITIES POLICY?
The following analysis was prepared by CFGC staff. See Question 17 of Attachment 1 for additional context on CFGC’s response. The proposed change would reduce fishing access, particularly for the fishing participants associated with the coastal fishing community of Dana Point (~7 nautical miles away from area of proposed change). Dana 5 Northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific mackerel (Scomber japonicus), jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), and market squid (Doryteuthis opalescens). 36 36 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
16 Point Harbor fishing community is principally dependent on commercial trap fishing and commercial passenger fishing vessel (CPFV) operations
(https://fishingcommunities.net/dana-point/fishing-profile/). Available fishing grounds for CPFVs and commercial lobster are constrained in this area due to the Laguna Beach SMR/No-take SMCA complex; the petition would further reduce available fishing grounds for CPFVs and the commercial lobster trap fleet homeported to the Dana Point Harbor fishing community.

QUESTION 18: DOES THE PROPOSED CHANGE INTERACT WITH OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO AFFECT PROPOSED CHANGES IN OTHER 2023 MPA PETITIONS?
No. The proposed change does not interact with, or have the potential to affect, proposed changes in other 2023 petitions.

V. SUPPLEMENTAL ANALYSES, DATA AND INFORMATION, AND

CITATIONS

TABLES AND FIGURES
Table 1. MPA attributes (area, LOP, depth range, and habitat extent) of the existing and proposed Laguna Beach No-take SMCA, including the percent change associated with the proposed action(s) in petition 2023-24MPA. Percent change is calculated by dividing the difference between proposed and existing values by the existing value and multiplying by 100. Percent change is reported as N/A when the calculation is not possible, such as when the existing MPA does not contain the habitat type or when existing and proposed values are reported in different units. A dash (—) indicates that the MPA does not contain the habitat type. Habitat extent may be reported in linear miles or square miles, depending on data availability and SAT guidance.

Values shown in bold in the cluster columns indicate that the MPA attribute meets the relevant science guideline established by the SAT during the MLPA Initiative planning process. An MPA contributes to habitat replication only if it first meets the minimum size (>nine sq mi) and LOP (Very High, High, or Moderate-High) criteria (i.e., first two rows must be bold). Laguna Beach No-take SMCA meets those requirements when clustered with the adjacent Laguna Beach SMR.
37 37 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
17 SMR
Existing
No-Take
SMCA
existing
Cluster
Existing
No-Take
SMCA
Proposed
Cluster
Proposed
No-Take
SMCA
Change
(%)
MPA Area (sq mi) 6.72 3.09 9.81 4.47 11.19 45
Level of Protection Very
High
Very
High
Very
High
Very
High
Very
High
—
Min Depth (m) 0 0 0 0 0 —
Max Depth (m) 457.9 523.3 523.3 523.3 523.3 —
Eelgrass (sq mi) — — — — —
Kelp (mi) 1.96 — 1.96 0.36 2.32 N/A
Beach (mi) 3.48 0.67 4.15 1.85 5.33 176
Rocky Intertidal (mi) 2.48 0.38 2.86 1.60 4.08 321
Estuaries (sq mi) <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0
Hard Substrate
0-30 m (mi) 0.31 0.04 0.35 0.07 0.38 75
30-100 m (sq mi) 1e-3 7e-3 8e-3 8e-3 9e-3 14
100-200 m (sq mi) — — — — — 0
>200 m (sq mi) — — — — — 0
Soft Substrate
0-30 m (mi) 4.21 1.02 5.23 2.34 6.55 129
30-100 m (sq mi) 2.88 0.94 3.82 1.54 4.42 64
100-200 m (sq mi) 1.13 0.57 1.70 0.57 1.70 0
>200 m (sq mi) 0.57 1.04 1.61 1.04 1.61 0
38 38 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
18 Figure 1. Total value (in millions $US) of commercially caught California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) from 2013 to 2024 by California Department of Fish and Wildlife fishing block for the South Coast Bioregion with reference to petition 2023-24MPA. Actual value provided within fishing blocks that overlap with proposed boundary expansion of Laguna Beach No-Take SMCA.

CITATIONS
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. California’s Marine Protected Area Network Decadal Management Review.

California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC). 2010. South Coast Initial Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action, adopted Dec. 15 2010.

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA). 2009a.  South Coast Planning Process Intent:

California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative MLPA Blue Ribbon Task Force Motion for an Integrated Preferred Alternative as Adopted as November 10, 2009 Meeting Document revised November 20, 2009. South Coast MPA Integrated Preferred Alternative Narrative and Descriptive Tables.

Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (MLPA). 2009b. California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative South Coast Project. Side-by-Side Comparison (maps and proposed 39 39 of 98
CDFW EVALUATION 2023-24MPA_AM Beanan
March 2026
19 regulations) of Revised SCRSG MPA Proposals 1, 2 and 3, and Proposal 0 (Existing MPAs).

Sub-region 4: Newport Beach to Agua Hediondo.

Ortiz-Villa, E.M., A. Rassweiler, J.E. Caselle, K.C. Cavanaugh, N. Arafeh-Dalmau, T.W. Bell, K.C.

Cavanaugh. 2025. Marine protected areas enhance climate resilience to severe marine heatwaves for kelp forests. Journal of Applied Ecology 62(9): 2439-2453.

Smith, J.G., C.M. Free, C. Lopazanski, J. Brun, C.R. Anderson, M.H. Carr, J. Claudet, J.E. Dugan, J.G. Eurich, T.B. Francis, S.L. Hamilton, P.T. Raimondi, R.M. Starr, S.L. Ziegler, K.J. Nickols, J.E.

Caselle. 2023. A marine protected area network does not confer community structure resilience to a marine heatwave across coastal ecosystems. Global Change Biology 29(19): 5634-5651.

Zeigler, S.L., J.M. Johnson, R.O. Brooks, E.M. Johnston, J.L. Mohay, B.I. Ruttenberg, R.M. Starr, G.T. Waltz, D.E. Wendt, S.L. Hamilton. Marine protected areas, marine heatwaves, and the resilience of nearshore fish communities.
40 40 of 98
April 1, 2026
California Fish and Game Commission
P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
Submitted electronically to [email protected]
Subject: Comments on CDFW Staff Evaluation of Laguna Bluebelt Petition (2023-24) Dear President Sklar, Vice President Anderson, and Honorable Commissioners:

We appreciate the work of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to advance the petition process for the MPA Decadal Review. We respectfully submit the following comments on the recent CDFW staff evaluation of the Laguna Bluebelt Petition (2023-24).

We believe the evaluation misconstrued data and elements of our petition in ways that resulted in erroneous conclusions. Specifically:

1. Our contention that uniform no take fishing regulations citywide would aid enforcement referred to public perception, not enforcement personnel. Clearly, enforcement personnel including Lifeguards, Park Rangers and Wardens have exceptional knowledge of regulations and types of take allowed in specific areas. The public, however, does not, and a clear regulation that there is no fishing in Laguna Beach is intrinsically more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations in different areas of the city. Presently, since Lifeguards are focused on public safety, there is no comprehensive on-site City enforcement of fishing licenses, season, species and size limits.

Also, the staff analysis combines violation data from the No Take Laguna Beach SMCA where violations are extremely rare due to city enforcement along with violations from the Dana Point SMCA which only include tide pool take, and compares that to the Bolsa Chica No Take SMCA which is heavily fished, is not enforced by local agencies, and has Attachment 4
41 41 of 98

1. Appendix A
the highest MPA violations in the state. This is a comparison of apples and oranges and has no value in the context of this evaluation.

2. We believe that the evaluation conclusion that the proposed boundary change would not result in significant ecological benefits is inaccurate. The staff evaluation uses a broad statement regarding stable kelp canopy from 2010 to 2016, ten years ago, before the 2014-2016 marine heat wave, to determine that fishing and anchor chain drag is not a significant impact on kelp in the petition area. However, a recent February 2026 report by Reef Check1 of the petition area found that “the kelp forest ecosystems inside the Laguna Beach SMR have stable giant kelp densities and currently have higher giant kelp densities than the ecosystems surveyed at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches. The protected ecosystems also currently have lower urchin densities than the unprotected reefs.” This leads to a more likely rationale that overfishing and disturbance from traps and anchor chains following the heat wave have reduced kelp recovery in the petition area, and that a boundary change will result in significant ecological benefits.

3. We are concerned with the vague rationale used in the staff analysis regarding potential whale entanglements. The clear fact is that if there are no traps in the petition area whales can’t get entangled there. Vague statements about the potential future placement of traps and whales getting entangled somewhere else have no value in evaluating the petition area.

4. We disagree with the evaluation conclusion that the additional area would not improve the performance of the Laguna Beach Reserve/SMCA cluster. The February 2026 Reef Check survey shows that reefs in the Laguna Beach Reserve outperform reefs in the petition area of the Dana Point SMCA in kelp density and biodiversity. Adding protection to the reefs in the petition area will give these areas a chance to recover to their natural abundance, improving the overall performance of the cluster.

5. Lastly, we have concerns with the statements regarding recreational fishing in Laguna Beach. Due to existing private property restrictions on public access, shore fishing opportunities in the petition area are minimal. There is only one public beach, Thousand Steps, which would become inaccessible to fishing due to the petition. This beach is only 0.41 miles of coast, less than half of the proposed petition along the coast. Also, observational data of fishing activity at Thousand Steps Beach from the MPA Watch program showed that during eighty seven human use surveys over a ten year period from March 1 of 2016 to March 31 of 2026, only nine people were observed shore fishing, and only three private party fishing boats were observed. All other observed fishing was commercial. This exceptionally low level of shore and private boat fishing in the area shows that restricting shore fishing in the petition area will have 42 42 of 98

1. Appendix A
almost no impact on non commercial fishing. Furthermore, the statement that the petition would result in “no recreational fishing in Laguna Beach” is irrelevant. Many otherwise legal activities, including smoking and the use of balloons, are illegal citywide in Laguna Beach. These restrictions are based on community values, and the desire of Laguna Beach residents to restrict fishing citywide is no different. There are many better places close by to recreationally fish. We acknowledge that this petition will have an impact on commercial fishing activities, however the petition area is a fraction of a percent of the area available for commercial fishing in Southern California and only a slight 11% increase in full protection in the Laguna Beach area. Fisheries can and will adapt to this change if implemented. Statements from commercial and recreational fishers confirm they have adjusted their practices and the Laguna’s MPAs are a sustainable fishery.

For the individual evaluation questions we have the following comments:

Question 1
We disagree with the conclusion that the proposed expansion would not improve the design of the existing MPA cluster. The Science Advisory Team (SAT) made the conclusion that bigger MPAs perform better and set a minimum size for reserves. The current Laguna Beach Reserve and No Take SMCA only meet that minimum size requirement. Enlarging the No Take area inherently improves the performance of the MPA Cluster per the SAT guidelines. Furthermore, the existing no take boundary was not designed to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was selected to meet the minimum requirement for persistent kelp canopy. Since that time kelp canopy has diminished, and the proposed extension provides the opportunity for expansion of kelp canopy by protecting reefs that are currently degraded by commercial fishing activities.

Question 2A
We disagree that the petition would not advance any adaptive management recommendations in the Decadal Management Review (DMR). There seems to be misinformation from the evaluators on the MPA Outreach activities in the area. Docent activities in the Dana Point SMCA are restricted to the City of Dana Point and do not occur in the Laguna Beach areas of this SMCA. Also, the Orange County MPA Collaborative only provides high level, countywide MPA outreach materials and has no presence in the Laguna Beach area of the Dana Point SMCA. The current situation where fishing is restricted in part of the city and open in another is inherently confusing to new visitors. A 43 43 of 98

1. Appendix A
clear message of “No Fishing in Laguna Beach” is more understandable to the public and is an effective adaptive management technique that advances DMR recommendation 15.

Questions 2B
We disagree with the evaluation statements for this question. As stated previously, a citywide regulation against fishing is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations. A recent study by Reef Check1 shows that protected reefs in the Laguna Beach Reserve are more productive of kelp than the reefs outside the no take area. This will not only increase kelp but the overall performance of the Orange County MPA cluster. Also, whales cannot get entangled in lobster traps in the petition area if lobster traps don’t exist there. So, the petition does address multiple MPA management challenges in the Dana Point SMCA.

Question 3
We agree with the evaluation conclusions.

Question 4
We strongly disagree with the evaluation conclusions for this question. There is clearly a misunderstanding by DFW staff of the location of the wastewater outfall mentioned in the evaluation. The outfall is in the existing Laguna Beach No Take SMCA, not in the petition area, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board, not the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates water quality in the area. The outfall State Lands Conservancy lease, and Regional Water Quality Control Board regulatory requirements will not be affected by the petition.

Question 5
We disagree with several conclusions in the evaluation for this question. First of all, there was a significant data gap on kelp persistence during this evaluation. That gap has now been filled with the February 2026 Reef Check Report1 on kelp inside and outside of the petition area. This report renders the previous evaluation that used ten year old data obsolete.

Also, the staff evaluation misstated the reasoning for the existing No Take SMCA boundary.

The existing no take boundary was not designed to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was selected to meet the minimum requirement for persistent kelp canopy.

Question 6
44 44 of 98

1. Appendix A
No Comment
Question 7
The staff analysis suggests that MPA boundary decisions based on information and political compromises ten years ago is now unchangeable. This is inconstant with the entire adaptive management process. Whether this option was considered in the past should have no bearing on whether it should be considered now, twelve years later, during an adaptive management review. Californias MPAs are required to undergo regular review and potential adaption due to changing conditions in the ocean and with community values. In this case the community always wanted the entire city to be protected. The Laguna Beach City Council passed a resolution, culminating in a 4-1 vote on June 16, 2009, to endorse a marine reserve for the entire coastline. The resulting boundary covering less than the full city was a political decision by the California Fish and Game Commission based on the data available at the time. California’s MPAs were never intended to be static and unchanging. That is why we have the Decadal Review Process.

Question 7B
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. Since implementation there have been significant habitat and species changes due to marine heat waves, climate change, over-fishing and other factors. Also, there is new information available via the February 2026 Reef Check1 study.

Question 8
We disagree with part of the evaluation conclusion for this question. The original intent of the current boundary was not to preserve fishing in Laguna Beach. It was to meet minimum No Take MPA size requirements and minimum persistent kelp extent. The persistent kelp extent is no longer met by the existing No Take MPAs due to habitat changes.

Question 9
We disagree with part of the evaluation conclusion for this question. The evaluation states that “the proposed change would increase the area protected in Laguna Beach No-take SMCA for kelp, beach, rocky intertidal, and hard and soft bottom (0-30 and 30-100 m depth) habitats, which may improve the design of this MPA”. But then it contradicts itself stating that this will not improve the network. That conclusion is illogical. The SAT recommendations say larger MPAs are preferred. Larger MPAs inherently help strengthen the entire MPA network. Expansion of the No Take Laguna Beach SMCA will clearly have positive benefits to the network based on the statement above. 45 45 of 98

1. Appendix A
Question 10
We have serious concerns about the evaluation of this question. The proposed southern boundary in the amended petition is on an even line of latitude and is as close as possible using Google Earth generated coordinates to the southern Laguna Beach city boundary. We are requesting additional DFW clarification on this evaluation and are open to a slight adjustment if necessary. The proposed southern boundary features a prominent bluff landmark for enforcement.

Question 10B
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question based on our answer to question 10.

Question 11
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. As stated previously, a citywide regulation against fishing is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations in different parts of the city. We are requesting clarification from DFW staff on the assertion that the proposed southern boundary extends into the City of Dana Point.

That was not the intent of the petitioner.

Question 12
We disagree with the evaluation conclusion for this question. In question 11 the evaluators state “…No-take regulations are generally easier to enforce and for the public to understand…”. Now in question twelve they say the opposite. As we have stated before a citywide regulation against fishing in Laguna Beach is more understandable to the public than a mix of regulations.

Question 13
We agree with this evaluation conclusion.

Question 15
We disagree with part of the evaluation for this question. Shore fishing in the petition is not a popular activity. Observational data of fishing activity at Thousand Steps Beach from the MPA Watch program showed that during eighty seven human use surveys over a ten year period from March 1 of 2016 to March 31 of 2026, only nine people were observed shore fishing, and only three private party fishing boats were observed. All other observed fishing 46 46 of 98

1. Appendix A
was commercial. This exceptionally low level of shore and private boat fishing in the area shows that restricting shore fishing in the petition area will have almost no impact on non commercial fishing.

Question 18
We agree with the evaluation conclusion for this question.

In conclusion we believe that the evaluation by Department of Fish and Wildlife staff contains numerous inaccuracies, assumptions and opinions, with little actual data to back them up. We disagree with most of the conclusions. We are looking forward to participating in the continuing California Fish and Game Commission process to provide updated and correct information to the Commissioners and public so a decision can be made to benefit both our ocean environment and the community as intended and legislated by the California Marine Life Protection Act Sincerely,
Mike Beanan
Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Appendix A
47 47 of 98
Reef Check California Report:

Laguna Beach Coastal Kelp Forest Evaluation
Final Report To: Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
Jaclyn Mann
Reef Check Foundation
February 2026
48 48 of 98
Introduction
The Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve (SMR) and the Laguna Beach State Marine Conservation Area (SMCA) were both established in January 2012 as a part of California’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) network (Figure 1). The Laguna Beach SMR protects more than six square miles of marine habitat and covers 4.4 miles of coastline. It extends from Abalone Point, Laguna Beach’s northernmost city limit, south to Goff Island. The Laguna Beach SMCA extends south from Goff Island to Table Rock and protects more than 3 square miles of marine habitat and covers 1.2 miles of coastline (California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2022).

Though these two MPAs cover most of the shoreline of Laguna Beach, there is an additional mile of coastline that remains unprotected between the Laguna Beach SMCA and the Dana Point SMCA.

Figure 1. Map showing the current boundaries of the Laguna Beach SMR and Laguna Beach SMCA (NoTake). 49 49 of 98
This report was designed to compare the kelp forest ecosystems found outside of the Laguna Beach SMR and the Laguna Beach SMCA to kelp forest ecosystems inside those protected areas.

Specifically, we will be comparing the communities found at six sites; four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR (Seal Rock, Shaws Cove, Divers Cove, Heisler Park) and two sites located in unprotected waters south of the Laguna Beach SMCA (Thousand Steps, Three Arches).

Reef Check Methods
To assess the kelp forest ecosystems, Reef Check divers completed biotic surveys at each of the six sites. All surveys were completed following the Reef Check California Monitoring Protocol (Freiwald et al. 2021). Each survey included six 30m by 2m swath transects on which divers conducted counts of fish, invertebrates, macroalgae, and made uniform point contact (UPC) observations. Data on substrate, relief, and cover (sessile organisms) were collected at every meter during each UPC survey. Transects were placed at each survey site in predetermined depth zones, three shallow and three deep. An additional 12 fish transects (30m by 2m and by 2m) were conducted during each survey. Along each transect, a set of 83 indicator species, comprising of 13 species of macroalgae, 35 taxa of invertebrates, and 35 taxa of fish, were looked for and counted. Reef Check indicator species have been selected because they are ecologically important and of relevance to management (Freiwald and Beahrs 2020).

Reef Check long-term monitoring data was also used to examine changes in the kelp forest communities of the four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR since the establishment of the MPA in 2012.

Giant Kelp Trends
In Southern California, giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) forms kelp forest canopies. Since the establishment of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA in 2012, all four monitored sites have shown a slight positive trend in giant kelp density (Figure 2). Looking specifically at data collected in 2025 and 2026, the four sites inside the Laguna SMR have notably higher giant kelp densities than those at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches, which are located outside the MPA (Figure 3).
50 50 of 98
Figure 2. Giant kelp densities over time at four long-term monitoring sites in Laguna Beach, California.

Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Figure 3. Mean giant kelp density at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. 51 51 of 98
Sea Urchin Trends
Reef Check monitors four species of urchin in California: purple urchins (Strongylocentrotus purpuratus), red urchins (Mesocentrotus franciscanus), starry urchins (Arbacia stellata), and crowned urchins (Centrostephanus coronatus). Purple, red, and crowned urchins are commonly observed in southern California. Starry urchin, though, are rare in California. Starry urchin have only been recorded during Reef Check surveys in southern California at sites off Anacapa and Santa Cruz Islands. Over 19 years of monitoring, starry urchin have never been recorded at Reef Check sites located in the Laguna Beach SMR.

Since the establishment of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA in 2012, all four long term monitoring sites have seen a decline in both purple and red urchin densities (Figure 4). If we look specifically at urchin density data collected in 2025 and 2026, the four sites inside the Laguna Beach SMR have notably smaller densities of both purple and red urchins than the two sites located outside of the MPA (Figure 5). Small amounts of crowned urchins were recorded at Seal Rock, Shaws Cove, Divers Cove, and Three Arches. Interestingly, starry urchins were recorded for the first time at a Laguna Beach site at Three Arches in 2026 (Figure 5).

Figure 4. Purple and red urchin densities over time at four long-term monitoring sites in Laguna Beach, California. Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. 52 52 of 98
Figure 5. Mean urchin density at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.

Reef Habitat Characterization
Uniform Point Contact (UPC) surveys were used to collect substrate data at each site. Substrate was recorded based on the size of the substrate at each point, ranging from sand (rock<0.5cm) to reef (rock>1m). The four sites located within the Laguna Beach SMR and Three Arches were mainly composed of large substrate, with all 5 sites characterized by over 50% rocky reef.

Thousand Steps Beach was characterized by more medium-sized substrate, with 50% cobble (rock< 15 cm) and only 30% rocky reef (Figure 6).
53 53 of 98
Figure 6. Mean percent substrate composition at six sites in Laguna Beach, California, based on the most recent survey data (2025 and 2026).

Conclusions
Overall, this report finds that the kelp forest ecosystems inside the Laguna Beach SMR have stable giant kelp densities and currently have higher giant kelp densities than the ecosystems surveyed at Thousand Steps Beach and Three Arches. The protected ecosystems also currently have lower urchin densities than the unprotected reefs. The higher urchin populations outside of the Laguna Beach SMR and SMCA may have led to increased grazing pressure on the algae communities of these ecosystems. If there is not enough drift algae to support urchin grazing, urchins are known to actively search for food and may graze on attached giant kelp holdfasts, resulting in a decline in giant kelp density (Harrold and Reed 1985). The fishing pressure on urchin predators, such as California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) and California sheephead (Bodianus pulcher), at sites outside the MPAs may allow larger populations of urchins to thrive on those reefs. Continuing to monitor these six sites will allow us to better understand the impacts of MPAs on the dynamics of these kelp forest ecosystems. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Seal Rock
Shaws Cove
Divers Cove
Heisler Park
Thousand Steps
Three Arches
% Substrate Composition
Sand (<0.5cm) Cobble (0.5cm - 15cm) Boulder (>15cm - 1m) Reef (>1m) Other 54 54 of 98
References
Freiwald, J., and A. Beahrs. 2020. Reef Check California: SCUBA-diving citizen scientist monitor rock reef ecosystems. Page 313 in C. A. Lepczyk, O. D. Boyle, and T. L. V. Vargo, editors. Handbook of citizen science in ecology and conservation. University of California Press, Oakland, California.

Freiwald, J., S. M. McMillan, and D. Abbott. 2021. Reef Check California Instruction Manual: A Guide to Monitoring California’s Kelp Forests, 10th Edition. Reef Check Foundation, Marina del Rey, CA, USA.

Harrold, C., and Reed, D. C. (1985). Food availability, sea urchin grazing, and kelp forest community structure. Ecology, 66(4), 1160-1169.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (2022, September). Laguna Beach State Marine Reserve/State Marine Conservation Area (No-Take). California Natural Resources Agency. https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Laguna-Beach#623964928 55 55 of 98
56 of 98
57 of 98
58 of 98
59 of 98
60 of 98
61 of 98
62 of 98
May 11, 2026
City Council of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Via Email: [email protected]
RE : Agenda Item #17-City Council Meeting May 12, 2026-Marine Protected Area Petition Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
The Board of Directors of Laguna Canyon Conservancy requests that the City Council support recommending the additional inclusion of just over 1.3miles to the southern boundary of the city’s already existing Marine Protected Area.

This act of environmental stewardship by City Council is important because:
-The small addition of 1.32 square miles will create a total of 11.1sq.mi. that still does not come close to meeting a preferred size of 18 sq. mi. for a successful Marine Protected Area. -Fishing is allowed off larger neighboring Dana Point and Newport Beach cities and that industry will benefit from even more increased residual improvements in kelp forest ecosystems recently reported by scientific study of Laguna Beach’s MPA. (See Reef Check Foundation Report 2/2026) -Increasing the size of any protected area along the California coast is beneficial for the migration of gray whales that is necessary for their existence. Laguna’s rocky coast area is a vital part of the marine life corridor between Palos Verde Peninsula and La Jolla Cove. -This revision will make monitoring and protection of the boundary area more consistent for our lifeguards, police officers and park rangers. It will be more understandable to the public when ALL of Laguna’s coastline is known to be a protected area.

Please be strong environmental stewards and support a complete Marine Protected Area along Laguna Beach’s coastline by recommending this addition to the CA Fish and Game Commission. Thank you for your efforts.

Laguna Canyon Conservancy is a non-profit, all-volunteer environmental organization founded in 1988 to Save and Protect Laguna Canyon. LCC members have been involved in expanding the South Coast Wilderness nature reserves of Orange County that now include over 22,000 acres of parks, open space, and marine preserves. For more information, please visit: www.LagunaCanyonConservancy.org
Sincerely,
Gayle Waite, President

63 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: MPA Extension
-----Original Message-----
From: Judy Teverbaugh
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:03 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: MPA Extension
Dear Council members,
I am hoping that you will support the Laguna Bluebelt efforts to extend the current MPA by 1.3 miles to include the rest of the Laguna coastline. It is a small area with a big impact on marine protecƟon. I will be in aƩendance at the May 19 meeƟng of the CA Fish & Wildlife Commission. I know that the support of our Council is important! Please work with us to protect this last mile of our coastline! Sincerely,
Judy Teverbaugh
40+ years Laguna resident
Ocean enthusiast
64 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agendas 17 and 24
From: Carey Strombotne
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:52 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Agendas 17 and 24
Dear Mayor Orgill and Council Members,
Regarding agenda 17: I am urging city council to vote to extend the Marine Protection Area. The MPAs and no take zones off the coast of Laguna Beach have been a successful since their inceptions. We are seeing the effects of the protection with healthy habitat and biodiversity of species. It seems like a no-brainer to extend the MPA, so that even more species can be restored to South Laguna. We Lagunans are so proud of our greenbelts and open green spaces, so it just makes good sense to extend our bluebelt protections, as well.

Regarding Agenda 24: Please vote against the Design Review Board's proposal to streamline the process and increase fees. Laguna is a unique and charming haven. The existing DRB rules are in place for reasons that were clear to our former generations. Please honor their legacies, and keep existing rules and protections in place.

Sincerely,
Carey Strombotne
Laguna Beach, CA
65 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agenda Item 17: Option 2: Oppose CDFW Petition (Support Recommendation) Extend the MPA Boundary - Please forward and place in public comment From: Trish Sweeney
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:48 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 17: Option 2: Oppose CDFW Petition (Support Recommendation) Extend the MPA Boundary - Please forward and place in public comment
Hi, Ann Marie.

Would you please forward this email to all council members and place it in to public comment for item 17 on tomorrow’s city council agenda?
Thank you.

Trish Sweeney
Laguna Beach City Council:

Our family supports extending the Marine Protected Area boundary to cover one more mile in South Laguna for the following reasons:
 Those of us in the diving community can confirm that the coves now protected in the MPA no-take zones have rebounded with kelp, fish, and sea life
 The Bluebelt Coalition is in the best position to make this recommendation and they have: they support expanding the zone
 Historically, the City of Laguna Beach has supported eco-conservation eƯorts like this for its widespread benefits
 Outside sport fishing interests should not take precedence over Laguna’s brand as environmental stewards: we have hotels from one end of town to the other and the ocean is the main draw  Currently, South Laguna is overfished. Fewer places for animal refuge can have a cascade eƯect on the marine environment
 Multiple organizations support extending the MPA boundary in South Laguna, recognizing that the northern part of town should not be the only area that benefits The Laguna Beach City Council should advocate for the change. City leaders have the opportunity to request that the Fish and Game Commission not follow CDFW’s recommendation on this. Options exist to define the SMCA no take zone visually to facilitate a consistent oƯshore boundary. Please oppose the CDFW petition and extend the SMCA no take zone and MPA boundary.

Thank you,
Trish and Mike Sweeney
66 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: item 17 Marine Protected Area (MPA)
From: Mike Arredondo
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:28 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: item 17 Marine Protected Area (MPA)
Hello Ann Marie
Please submit my comments to next week’s meeting on extending the Marine Protected Area to include south Laguna down to Three Arch Bay.

As an avid boater and fisherman, I support keeping our Laguna Coastline protected to allow the kelp and fish to thrive in our local waters. It’s well documented that overfishing, loss of coral and kelp beds have threatened our coastline and Sealife. There is plenty of sea left for recreation and fishing away from the coastline. In addition, the many tourist and day trippers who damage the tide pools we could use more docents to help educate people on this MPA extension.

Thank you,
Mike Arredondo
824 Acaulco St, LB 92651
[email protected]
949-929-8577
67 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: MPA discussion tonight 5/5
From: Donna Kalez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:46 PM
To: Frimond, Jeremy CM <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: MPA discussion tonight 5/5
Good afternoon can you please add this to the record for tomorrow nights meeting 5/12 Thank you
Donna Kalez, Co- Owner
Dana Wharf Sportfishing & Whale Watching
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Donna Kalez
Date: Tue, May 5, 2026 at 10:06 AM
Subject: MPA discussion tonight 5/5
To: Frimond Jeremy MS <[email protected]>
Dear Members of the City Council,
My name is Donna Kalez, and I am the co-owner of Dana Wharf Sportfishing and Whale Watching. I would like to thank you for your time regarding the petition to expand the Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Laguna Beach. We remain opposed to any further expansion.

I strongly support the Environmental Sustainability Committee’s recommendation to follow the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s recommendation to deny Petition 2023-24. This petition proposes a onemile expansion of the Laguna Beach MPA to the Dana Point border. I ask that you discuss this issue at your May 12th meeting, ahead of the Fish and Wildlife Commission meeting on May 19th.

For your reference, I have included the letter I read to the committee on April 20th below:

My name is Donna Kalez, and my family and I own Dana Wharf Sportfishing and Whale Watching. I strongly oppose Petition 2023-24.

The current MPA network was established through the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) process, involving years of collaboration between the fishing community, conservationists, scientists, and government agencies. This proposal to close the final mile of open coastline in Laguna Beach—the only area remaining for activities like recreational fishing and lobstering—undermines that spirit of cooperation.

Closing this accessible section would not provide a meaningful conservation benefit. Instead, it would displace recreational pressure into neighboring Dana Point, placing an undue strain on those resources.

Furthermore, this closure would negatively impact the local economy. Our business offers short-duration trips specifically for families, seniors, and individuals with special needs. Extending the Laguna Beach closure would disenfranchise these anglers and force the cancellation of many programs that provide thousands of people with their first opportunity to experience the ocean. 68 of 98
2 The MPA network is still young, and the Laguna Beach MPA is already considered a success, providing healthy fish spillover. The proposed expansion is not supported by new scientific evidence; no new studies have demonstrated a need for additional closures since 2017. In his 2024 TED Talk, Dr. Chad Nelsen of the Surfrider Foundation even cited the Laguna Beach MPA as a working example of success (Video:
https://youtu.be/b6x7eVVbhpo).

This proposal appears to be driven by local preference rather than science-based management.

Additionally, there have been no demonstrated enforcement issues with current boundaries to justify this expansion.

I respectfully request that you deny Petition 2023-024 and maintain the current Laguna Beach MPA boundaries, as recommended by the Department of Fish and Wildlife. It is vital that we honor the agreements and trust built over the last 12 years.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Donna Kalez
Owner, Dana Wharf Sportfishing & Whale Watching
Dana Point, California
69 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
From: Laguna Beach City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 17
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Caenn
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 4:42 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Laguna Beach City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 17
Mayor Orgill and Councilmembers,
Please support Laguna Bluebelt’s request to extend the coastline‘s marine protected area to the end of South Laguna. The reports from those who have observed firsthand over the last few years emphasize the dramaƟc improvement in marine life and diversity. The expansion of the kelp beds has played an important role as well.

ProtecƟng our ocean and it’s wildlife benefits everyone.

Thank you for your consideraƟon,
Anne
Anne Caenn
965 Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
70 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Protection of Laguna’s long history of coastline retainment -----Original Message-----
From: Beatrix Cashmore
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 6:44 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Mina
Subject: ProtecƟon of Laguna’s long history of coastline retainment Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
My sister Elisabeth Malartre Brown was an acƟve protector of Laguna’s unspoiled open lands for 60+ years plus the indigenous wildlife that has thrived there. She is now honored by Laguna’s ciƟzens with a prominent plaque downtown dedicated to her for her long service and work with the City Council for the benefit of current and future residents. Her daughter Elisabeth Marina Brown was born in Laguna and sƟll devotes herself to maintaining its unmatched uniqueness. She volunteered years of parƟcipaƟon with city government as an advocate for prevenƟng over development and destrucƟon of the character of Laguna Beach.

Please honor their decades of work to retain the culture and charm of Laguna Beach by curtailing over growth of a town so well known for it’s uniqueness. Thank you Sincerely, Beatrix J. Cashmore, Sent from my iPhone 71 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Extending Laguna’s MPA to the City’s Southern Boundary Attachments: May 12 2026 Comments for City Council - Yorke.pdf; TAB CSD Signed Letter 5-1-2023.pdf From: Judy Yorke
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 6:01 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Extending Laguna’s MPA to the City’s Southern Boundary Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I attended your meeting last September and requested the City Council to support the Extension of Laguna's MPA to include South Laguna. It's been very disappointing that our City has not yet supported this effort, and embarrassing that an incompetent committee of the City Council could not prioritize the interests of citizens, visitors, and environmental sustainability over commercial lobbying.

Please accept my complete comments attached.

I hope that you will see through the commercial fishing interests and support Laguna's citizens and visitors who want a restored Marine Environment - one that has been devastated by the Dana Point "Take" State Marine Conservation Area. Fishermen don't fish anymore in South Laguna, except for right near the MPA boundary, because they have destroyed the kelp beds that used to support the fish.

We have watched our marine life disappear. Please right the wrong that has been gut-wrenching for us in South Laguna!
Thank you!
Judy Yorke
Citizen of South Laguna, and
Director Three Arch Bay Community Services District
72 of 98
Supporting the Proposed MPA (No-Take) Adjustment
to Include All of Laguna Beach, Including South Laguna’s Rocky Intertidal Coastal Area
May 10, 2026
Judy Yorke, Resident of South Laguna Beach
73 of 98
13 Years Ago, Before the “Take” Dana Point SMCA,
South Laguna’s Rocky Intertidal Area Had Kelp and Fish
 South Laguna previously had Kelp beds
and an active fish population - as you can
see in this Spear Fishing YouTube Video
from South Laguna 12+ years ago - Spearfishing Laguna Beach  Because of the Dana Point “Take” SMCA
in South Laguna, the South Laguna
Rocky Intertidal zone has been overfished
- the kelp beds destroyed and the marine
life collapsed
 The Marine Life, that we used to have, has
been destroyed due to lack of protection by
the state. It is now rocks, sand and very few
fish as compared to the past.
2 Aug 20,
2013
74 of 98
We’ve Watched the Destruction Caused by the
Dana Point“Take” SMCA
 Without the large, mature lobsters and
sheepshead fish that eat the urchins, the
urchins have overpopulated and ravage the
kelp root systems.  We’ve watched the hundreds of Lobster Pots being placed in South Laguna each year –
concentrated on rocks with kelp – and the kelp
ripped up each time the pots are brought up –
until there is no more kelp - it’s so sad.
 By 2019, the Kelp Beds in South Laguna were
documented to be 2% of what they were in
2013. That is a 98% loss of our kelp since
2013, and there is almost no kelp remaining
now – due to the Dana Point SMCA https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler. ashx?DocumentID=218206&inline 3
75 of 98
MPAs that Allow for Large Lobsters and Mature,
Reproducing Fish are Key to Fish Repopulation
 A Mature Sheephead will release “hundreds of
thousands to millions of eggs per season” versus
young females whose reproductive output is “very
limited”. “Older, larger females are the most prolific
spawners, which is why their conservation is so
important.” - Copilot
 Fishing boats and scuba divers no longer come to
the barren and overfished waters of South Laguna –
there are sand and rocks, and very few fish!
 Look at what the MPAs in North Laguna have in
comparison!
 MPA Videos - SCUBA Divers/Boat Traverse - Laguna
Beach 2023 - 4K- Scuba Diving Fisherman's and
Divers Cove | Laguna Beach | California , Scuba
Diving Crescent Bay in Laguna Beach
 The difference is easy to see, by just looking! CA DFW didn’t even look obviously! 4
76 of 98
CDFW’s 3/26 Evaluation Was Obviously Deeply Flawed. Their Recommendation is Scientifically Wrong, Out-of-Touch, and Erroneous

1. The Dept of Fish and Wildlife evaluated
the wrong boundary.

2. They assumed that the proposed
adjustment interferes with the wastewater
outfall – It Does NOT

3. South Laguna’s Rocky Intertidal zone is
very different from Dana Point’s sandy
shoreline. The Adjustment is only near
shore and will allow plenty of fishing and
lobstering off the coast and along the
beach in Dana Point.

4. There is NO enforcement challenge –
South Laguna is part of Laguna Beach - consistency across our City is a benefit. The citizens of Laguna provide enforcement and public outreach.

5. It is a very minimal request to allow for
Kelp regrowth and South Laguna’s
Intertidal fish nurseries to regrow –
devastated by the Dana Point SMCA 5
Staff Summary for April 16-17, 2025 Commission
meeting - Item 28
77 of 98
Raw Photo
from my
IPhone,
11/1/2023
Annotated 9/20/2025
All these little white dots, glinting
in the sun, are lobster buoys,
lining the border of the MPA - a
dolphin or whale could not swim
through the phalanx of trap lines,
too numerous to count.

Hundreds of traps, set
around rocky intertidal
reefs, throughout South
Laguna, are outside the
MPA. Any kelp that gets a
toehold is ripped up with the
pullup of the traps,
throughout Lobster Season,
destroying the underwater
nurseries for sea life
throughout South Laguna.

Hundreds of Lobster Traps are Lined Up
on the Laguna Beach MPA Boundary
Each Year.

Shown here in 2023, Along with Fishing
Boats, in South Laguna Beach.
78 of 98
2026 Lobster Traps are Lined Up on the MPA Boundary,
Showing Where the Fishermen Go to Fish and the Very
Sever Impact on the Rocky Intertidal Zone
Photos taken with my iPhone,
from about 1 mile away.

January, 2026
Approx. current boundary of the
Laguna Beach (No Take) SMCA
South Laguna’s Rocky
Intertidal Zone
79 of 98
Raw Photo from my
IPhone, 10/20/2025,
The Fishermen and Lobstermen Know Where the Fish
and Lobster Are – Along the MPA!
8 Hundreds of Lobster buoys, along
the border of the MPA, also where
the Fishing Boats go.

Whether they are on this
Border or the Adjusted
Border, they will Still be
Able to Fish!
80 of 98
The Proposed Adjustment is a Win-Win-Win!
 The No-Take extension is only a
minimal adjustment to the MPA – the
fishermen can fish along the extended
border of the MPA and along the shore
in Dana Point
 The fishermen will benefit from a
healthier and more plentiful fish and
lobster population – with large lobsters
and fish that reproduce and multiply
successfully and sustainably
 South Laguna’s intertidal Sealife can
recover, and we can have wonderful
snorkeling again – for our many
visitors and residents. 9
81 of 98
The Dept of Fish and Wildlife Got It WRONG –
The DFG Commission Must Right the Wrongs that Have
Destroyed South Laguna’s Rocky Intertidal Marine Environment!  South Laguna Beach is NOT Dana Point! The Dana Point SMCA has severely damaged the South Laguna Rocky Intertidal zone and the resulting open-ocean fish populations
 South Laguna is Rocky Intertidal – unlike the sand bottoms of Dana Point! MPAs are our Marine Fish Hatcheries – if they are unprotected, the intertidal fish populations collapse – as we have now seen in South Laguna
 A Laguna Beach Adjusted MPA will
produce more Fish and Lobsters - to
Fish and keep our fishing sustainable
 Please Let the State know that
Laguna Beach Supports the
Proposed MPA (No-Take) Adjustment
to include South Laguna Beach!
82 of 98
South Laguna Belongs in the Laguna
Beach MPA, not the Dana Point SMCA!
 The benefits of Laguna Beach’s MPA is shared by ALL: locals, tourists, and fishermen - that depend on healthy, replenished sea life  We are a Tourist town – our Visitors want to see Sea Life  We, the people of Laguna, want the abundant return of the kelp beds and sea life and within all of Laguna Beach, including South Laguna.  It is Shocking that our City is not supporting the protection of South Laguna from the overfishing and the destruction experienced since 2012. For the benefit of what or whom? Dana Point Commercial Operations?
 The destruction of South Laguna’s Kelp beds (and dependent Marine Life) is documented to be more than 98% destroyed – is that what you would call “Sustainable”?! Please consider and Right the Wrongs!
83 of 98
84 of 98
85 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Petition 2023-24MPA – Proposed Expansion of the Laguna Beach SMCA From: Jack Likins
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 9:07 PM
To: Frimond, Jeremy CM <[email protected]>
Cc: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Petition 2023-24MPA – Proposed Expansion of the Laguna Beach SMCA Re: Petition 2023-24MPA – Proposed Expansion of the Laguna Beach SMCA Dear Mayor Orgill and Council Members:

As a marine environmentalist, underwater photographer, and former Laguna Beach lifeguard, I respectfully urge you to support the denial of Petition 2023-24MPA, which proposes expanding Laguna’s MPA in South Laguna. Denial is consistent with the recommendation of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for the reasons outlined in its evaluation.

Expanding Laguna Beach’s already extensive MPA network would eliminate the only remaining area that provides public shore access for fishing: Thousand Steps Beach. Approval of this petition would also have tangible economic impacts on commercial lobster operations and local charter fishing businesses without clear evidence of corresponding ecological benefit.

The petition’s central ecological claim is that expanding the no-take area will increase populations of large male California sheephead, reduce urchin populations, and restore kelp through a trophic cascade.

While this mechanism has been observed in certain systems, there is no site-specific evidence demonstrating that it is currently limiting kelp recovery in the proposed expansion area.

Based on my personal diving observations at both Thousand Steps and Three Arch Bay, sheephead populations already appear robust. As the petitioners should be aware, sheephead are protogynous hermaphrodites: when males are removed, dominant females can transition to males, often within days.

Additionally, urchin densities in this area are not elevated to levels typically associated with widespread kelp suppression. Kelp abundance appears consistent with adjacent MPA sites and is largely dictated by the underwater substrate rather than fishing pressure. Thousand Steps Beach consists primarily of sand and cobble habitat, which is generally unsuitable for kelp growth compared to much of Laguna’s existing MPA coastline.

In the absence of documented predator limitation or urchin overpopulation, as asserted in the petition, the proposed expansion does not address a clearly defined ecological deficiency.

The Marine Life Protection Act calls for adaptive management based on the best available science. This petition does not present compelling scientific evidence that fishing pressure is degrading ecosystem function in this area, nor that expansion would measurably improve MPA network performance or advance MLPA objectives.

If Laguna’s existing MPAs are already meeting their statutory goals, expanding protections to the remaining accessible coastline appears to be driven more by anti-fishing policy preference than by demonstrated ecological need.
86 of 98
2 For these reasons, and in alignment with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s evaluation, I urge the Council to support the denial of Petition 2023-24MPA.

Respectfully,
Jack Likins
31644 2nd Ave.

Laguna Beach, CA 92651
949-549-4658
87 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Letter re MPA extension I sent to CC
From: janine robinson
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 4:09 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Subject: fyi: Letter re MPA extension I sent to CC
Subject: Why is Laguna Beach not supporting our amazing MPA? Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

I recently learned about the proposed extension to our Marine Protection Areas, which have succeeded beyond anyone's expectations. I strongly support this extension, and am concerned about the opposition to it — especially from our own city.

The benefits of our existing MPAs are shared by ALL: by locals who swim, surf, and snorkel here; by the millions of tourists who come to experience the same; and by the commercial fishing industry that depends on healthy, replenished waters.

Everyone who spends time on our coast has seen the abundant return of sea life and kelp within the protected areas — and how the reefs and coves to the south remain overfished and barren by comparison.

Extending protection southward by a mile or so is not a radical idea. It's the logical next step in protecting our entire coastline and continuing the urgent ecological recovery.

The opposition, as best I can tell, comes from two groups: those who miss the era when far fewer people (not literally millions like now) visited and one could take freely from the ocean — lobster, fish, octopus, whatever they liked — and those who profit commercially from local sea life, including the sportfishing and whale-watching industries.

My understanding is that the loudest pressure is coming from Dana Point, where fishermen reportedly line up along the southern border of our existing MPA specifically to harvest the spillover bounty that our protected waters generate.

Who is advocating for Laguna Beach and what our residents (and visitors) care most about? I was deeply disappointed to learn that our own Environmental Sustainability Committee voted to oppose this extension, apparently following the lead of California Fish and Wildlife officials who declined to support the petition. When I looked into their stated reasons, I found them thin and, reportedly in parts, factually inaccurate. The claim that an extension would "hamper existing enforcement" and “lacked evidence of pressing management need” is not credible on its face. It reads more like political rationalization than a reason.

It’s difficult not to conclude that the Dana Point fishing and commercial lobster lobby carries more weight with officials in Sacramento than the health of the marine ecosystem in Laguna Beach. That is deeply troubling — and it makes it all the more important that our own city stand up for its residents, its visitors, and its coastline.
88 of 98
2 What could be more central to "environmental sustainability" than protecting the rocky reefs and coves that replenish fish, kelp, and marine life in the deeper waters beyond? These habitats have no voice.

They cannot advocate for themselves. That has always been our role.

Laguna Beach has a long tradition of acting as a steward of its extraordinary natural surroundings — the hills and wildlife corridors, the beaches and coves, the abundant sea life. The city I moved to thirty years ago understood that protecting these things was not a burden, but an obligation and a privilege.

I urge the Council to override the committee's recommendation and support this extension. Future generations — and the ocean itself — are counting on you to do the right thing.

Thanks for your consideration,
Janine and Charlie Robinson
89 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: MPAs for South Laguna
From: Darrylin Girvin
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 1:25 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: MPAs for South Laguna
City Council members.

I urge you to vote YES on the final mile of the MPA's in Arch Beach Heights.

The Bluebelt and many supporters worked diligently driving to Coastal Commission meetings and speaking to the Coastal Commission for many months to get their decision for our 7 mile reserve we now have off our coastline here in Laguna Beach.

You approved it then and I am now asking for you to approve this final mile at the south end of our ocean.

If it works for the fishermen as it has, then there shouldn't be any other course to take but to approve this now.

Darrylin Girvin
Resident
90 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: MPA Extension
From: Lake Perry
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 8:02 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: MPA Extension
Voting FOR the extension of the MPA will ensure the protection of Laguna’s legendary environmental health and beauty. Voting FOR it will also ensure that Laguna Beach’s current council stands for common sense and for future generations’ enjoyment of the unique qualities of the Laguna habitat.

Lake Perry
91 of 98
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Laguna Bluebelt Petition to extend our existing Marine Protected Area (MPA) From: Rosemary Boyd
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2026 8:07 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Laguna Bluebelt Petition to extend our existing Marine Protected Area (MPA) You can't argue with success. PLEASE pass the Laguna Bluebelt Petition to extend the MPA to our southern boundary!
Rosemary Boyd
Laguna Resident for 59 years!
92 of 98
3151 Airway Ave, Suite F-110
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
714-850-1965
www.coastkeeper.org
May 8, 2026
Laguna Beach City Council
Subject: Laguna Beach Petition 2023-24
Dear Mayor Orgle and Councilmembers.

Orange County Coastkeeper is an environmental organization with the mission to protect the region’s water resources, so they are swimmable, drinkable and fishable for present and future generations. We have the following comments related to petition 2023-24 for Laguna Beach and the petition review process in general.

First of all, you should recognize that the Department of Fish and Wildlife evaluation of petition 2023-24 contains significant errors. This includes their evaluation of the original proposed southern boundary instead of the amended proposed southern boundary. Stating that a wastewater outfall that is in the existing SMCA is located in the petition area, and that the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over the area, when it is the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board’s service area. We spoke with DFW staff about this issue in a meeting soon after the release of the evaluation. They admitted the errors but have stated that they would not correct the document and that “ it is our job to let everyone know” This has made our job of talking about the evaluation much tougher, as we have to start off with statements about the DFW mistakes, taking up our speaking time and making us look like complainers. In my opinion the lack of good faith effort by the DFW staff to correct obvious and admitted errors signals a lack of respect for the petition process, and casts doubt on the entire petition 2023-24 evaluation.

I am not alone in this opinion. The lack of rigor evident in the DFW evaluations has resulted in the Ocean Protection Council taking up the task of evaluating each of the petitions. I am looking forward to a more thorough evaluation based on the best available science, including the January 2026 Reef Check survey of the petition area. This survey is the only petition area specific data available and its findings are clear. Reefs in the petition area are in poorer shape than reefs in immediately adjacent no take areas. Since all the reefs in Laguna Beach, in and out of the no take area, have experienced the same ocean cycles and climate change related conditions, there is one huge difference. The reefs outside the no take area have been impacted by intensive commercial fishing. The petition strives to relieve this pressure on the reefs to give them a chance to recover naturally. The proposed expansion area is very small, and even with the expansion, the Laguna Beach no take area would be substantially smaller than the preferred size recommended by the Science Advisory Team of sixteen square miles. 93 of 98
I also want to address the overall approach of the petition evaluation process. There is an obvious bias against adaptive management by DFW staff, with regular statements that the network is working as is, and that the petitions are too much work. Fish and Game Code 2852a states: Adaptive management," with regard to marine protected areas, means a management policy that seeks to improve management of biological resources, particularly in areas of scientific uncertainty, by viewing program actions as tools for learning. Unfortunately, in the current process there seems to be little concern with improving the network, even when the facts show that the current network does not meet the science guidelines. Additionally, there appears to be a bias toward consumptive interests over science in regard to existing conditions.

I have been actively fishing on the ocean and freshwater for 58 years, that does not make me or other recreational fishers with similar experience experts on fisheries. The same applies to commercial fishers. Their job is to fish for profit, and maximum access to fishing is their top priority on the ocean and in the hearing rooms. While I believe we all want sustainable fisheries, if that was working on an individual basis, we would not need fishing regulations or MPAs. On the other hand, fisheries management by indigenous peoples over millennia did work, yet this knowledge has yet to get the respect it deserves.

I was a member of the South Coast Stakeholders group in the original MPA development process. There I witnessed the efforts of the consumptive users to derail the process and weaken the eventual network. I was not the only one to see this. In a 2016 case analysis by MPA process facilitator Scott McCreary and Stakeholder Phylis Griffman they state: What’s worse, the final integrated proposal tilts toward the positions of the consumption-oriented stakeholders, reflecting the consequences of positional bargaining and “anchoring” by these interest groups. As a result, the science guidelines created to guide the proposal development process were not met. Slightly more than half of the fifty South Coast marine protected areas can be considered sufficiently protective to support the MLPA’s ecological goals. Of these, ten fall below the minimum size range recommended by the science panel. Many spacing guidelines were also unmet (more than in any other study region), potentially compromising “the ecological connectivity of the network. The same type of effort is underway now. With the consumptive users unwilling to support any improvement in the network that inhibits fishing in any way. To be clear, the expansion would not keep anyone from fishing recreationally or commercially, they would only have to move one mile south to do all the activities they have now.

Another myth that needs to be addressed is the idea that the original MPA Stakeholders “came to an agreement” on the network and that it should not be altered. That is far from true. In fact, the dissatisfaction of the stakeholders with the resulting network was substantial. This is documented in a 2016 study of the original stakeholder experience by the same authors. In this study they state: However, the majority of South Coast MLPA RSG members report dissatisfaction with the outcomes of the process. When asked to rate their level of agreement with the statement “I am satisfied with the final MPA design adopted by the Commission on December 15, 2010” on a scale of 1 to 6, the average response was 2.5 (Appendix 3: USC Sea Grant Retrospective Study).23 This mean score of 2.5 is strikingly low in contrast to finding from the North Central Coast RSG (the process conducted immediately prior to the South Coast) 94 of 98
where the mean satisfaction score was 4.03. While a substantial number of stakeholders registered only tepid support for the outcome, a few members of the South Coast RSG went as far as to file litigation intending to block implementation of the very MLPA regulations which they had been charged with helping to craft. So, there is no reason to assume that the existing network had, or has the buy in of the consumptive or non consumptive stakeholders that helped create it. On the other hand, there is ample evidence that the public at large supports marine protection, and more of it.

In conclusion I urge you to embrace adaptive management and take the steps necessary to improve the current MPA network. This includes using the best available science and recognizing the bias of different sources of information. The vast majority of the public uses our ocean resources in non consumptive ways. They expect and deserve a thriving marine environment, that can also provide healthy and sustainable seafood for generations to come.

Sincerely,
Raymond Hiemstra
Associate Director of Policy and Projects
95 of 98
May 7, 2026
Re: Laguna Bluebelt Petition 2023-24-AM
Mayor and City Council
We recognize the Department of Fish & Wildlife (DFW) faced several challenges in evaluating petitions submitted to the Decadal Review of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs).

One challenge seeks to incorporate adaptive management provisions in the Marine Life Protection Act (MPLA) to promote careful analysis of the impacts to specific MPAs since 2012 while encouraging improvements to sustain the overall MPA Network.

Unfortunately, the recent DFW staƯ analysis of Petition 2023-24-AM evaluated the incorrect petition and includes substantial errors related to sound science, regulatory agencies, accurate socioeconomics and site-specific facts.

Sound Science
The DFW analysis did not consider guidelines for a successful MPA.

The Laguna Bluebelt Petition’s request for a boundary revision reflects the recommendations of the Science Advisory Team (SAT) analysis of California’s 124 MPAs. At an expense of over $1 million dollars, SAT determined the best size and shape for successful MPAs. Minimum size for success was 9 square miles while preferred size for success was 18 square miles.

Laguna Beach’s State Marine Reserve is only 6.71 square miles so an additional 3.09 miles was added in the No Take SMCA to achieve a fully protected area of only 9.8 square miles.

Petition 2023-24-AM seeks to add 1.32 miles to create an MPA of 11.1 square miles to approach the SAT guidelines for a preferred size of 18 square miles for success.

New scientific surveys are not incorporated in the DFW evaluation. Since 2012, intensive fishing pressure has impacted fish size and abundance as confirmed independently by a Reef Check Foundation Survey conducted in January 2026 (Attached). While kelp forests in the adjacent Laguna MPA feature dense coverage with an abundant variety of sea life and fish species, the petition area in the Dana Point SMCA only has remnant kelp at Totuava Cove. The historic oƯshore reef, now covered in sand, presently has few if any stands of kelp and an absence of male Sheepshead and legal-size fish. 96 of 98
Regulatory Agency
The No Take SMCA is a compromise with the South Orange County Wastewater Authority (SOCWA) to provide monitoring and maintenance of the Aliso Creek Ocean Outfall (ACOO) pipeline to the oƯshore diƯuser pipe beyond the MPA boundary. The outfall pipe is not located in the petition area, as stated in the DFW evaluation. It is located in the existing No Take SMCA. Also, the ACOO is regulated by the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (SDRWQCB) rather than the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board referenced in the DFW evaluation.

Boundary Revision
The DFW staƯ evaluation considered the map submitted in the original Petition, 2023-24 rather than the revised map submitted in Petition 2023-24-AM.

Petition 2023-24-AM was properly amended within appropriate deadlines to incorporate a revised boundary at the Laguna Beach City Limit to follow one latitude line to facilitate enforcement following recommendations from DFW staƯ and the Orange County Marine Protected Area Collaborative (OCMPAC). The southern boundary’s approximate latitude site was intended to be precisely identified in the adaptive management process to take advantage of a prominent coastal bluƯ landmark at the southernmost city limit.

Whale Entanglement
The petition area is currently covered in lobster traps during the season. This creates a threat to the safe seasonal migration of California Grey Whales and calves traveling north close to shore. The removal of lobster traps from the petition area eliminates the threat of whale entanglement in the petition area.

Socioeconomic Considerations
Public testimony from the local fishing community reports that the Laguna Beach MPA has proven to provide a sustainable fishery for the region. However, while no verifiable information or data has been provided, the same consumptive stakeholders insist any boundary revision will have significant impacts on their revenues. Without verifiable long term economic data, there is no objective manner or opportunity to evaluate their concerns. Full transparency is essential for an objective evaluation.

SAT guidelines determined the spillover eƯect from MPAs will continue to replenish fisheries and be enhanced by MPAs within the preferred size for success as proposed in Petition 2023-24-AM.
97 of 98
Shore fishing Limitations
The proposed petition area includes the Three Arch Bay Community and public Thousand Steps Beach. Since Three Arch Bay is a private community, public access for shore fishing is limited to residents. The remaining Thousand Steps Beach is 0.4 miles long with steep bluƯs descending to deep oƯshore canyons. MPA Watch data collected over ten years shows shore fishing is rare at Thousand Steps beach. Stairway signage warns about strong wave action and dangerous reef conditions. Rescues requiring multiple Fire Department and Marine Safety resources, including helicopters, are common throughout the popular summer season.

Recommend Actions
The Laguna Bluebelt Coalition recommends Commissioners reject DFW recommendations due to multiple in accuracies and a lack of scientific data for the petition area, and proceed to evaluate the Petition 2023-24-AM utilizing the best available science, specifically the Reef Check study, and correct regulatory information.

The MLPA encourages including a variety of Essential Fish Habitats (EFHs) in developing the preferred size and shape for successful MPAs. Laguna Beach’s surrounding steep coastal mountains provide a variety of beaches, tidepools and reefs. The petition area is characterized by hilltops rising 1,000 feet within ½ mile of the shore to create a unique deepwater environment with powerful wave action and, when protected, another site for biodiversity. It is not an ideal or safe site for shore-fishing.

As suggested earlier, a site visit can familiarize Commissioners and staƯ with the unique characteristics of the proposed petition area and prominent boundary landmark. A tour by boat or land can be arranged prior to or after the May 19th Meeting in San Clemente to assist in formulating an informed decision based on sound science and approval of Petition 2023- 24-AM.

Thank you for your dedication and leadership to protect and restore California’s sea life heritage as a priceless environmental legacy for present and future generations.

Mike Beanan
Petitioner for Laguna Bluebelt Coalition
98 of 98

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 12, 2026

BUSINESS
18 SUBJECT: CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND

TRANSIT SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE

COSTS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year Professional Services Agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with LAZ Parking California, LLC (“LAZ”) for trolley and ondemand transit operating services for the period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2031, in an amount not to exceed $19,102,790;

2. Consider approving reductions to certain off-season trolley and on-demand transit services, as reflected in Figure 4, in order to reduce Transit Fund subsidy requirements while maintaining compliance with Orange County Transportation Authority (“OCTA”) Measure M2 Project V grant requirements;

3. Authorize implementation of up to a $5 per passenger fare for Laguna Local on-demand transit services, as reflected in Figure 6; and

4. Find the action exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
This report recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year agreement, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with LAZ Parking California, LLC (“LAZ”) for continued operation of the City’s trolley and on-demand transit services, with targeted reductions to certain off-season trolley and on-demand services as reflected in Figure 4. The report also recommends that the City Council authorize implementation of up to a $5 per passenger fare for Laguna Local on-demand services, as reflected in Figure 6. Should Council and the community desire it, staff can consider a monthly pass or similar discount rate for certain users of Laguna Local. Fares would take effect on or after September 1, 2026.

Staff considered the merits of applying a fare to the trolley system, but the collection and administration of that appears to be higher than the possible revenue collected. Further, the goal of the trolley is for people to leave their cars at area lots, and a fare may be a disincentive to that, bringing more vehicles into town.

The City operates a year-round trolley and on-demand system that supports the City’s parking management and traffic reduction strategies by providing transportation options for residents and visitors. Pursuant to Orange County Transportation Authority (“OCTA”) Measure M2 Project V grant requirements and the City’s procurement procedures, the City must issue a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) every five years to maintain eligibility for grant funding. Following an RFP process, a selected committee evaluated proposals submitted by LAZ and Propark Mobility and determined that LAZ was the highest-ranked proposer based on the operational experience, staffing approach, project understanding, and costs considerations. 1 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

The proposed agreement would maintain the City’s transit operations at an estimated annual operating cost of approximately $3.7 to $3.9 million, depending on service levels. To reduce ongoing Transit Fund subsidy from the Parking Fund, while maintaining compliance with OCTA grant requirements, staff evaluated options to reduce service level and increase transit-related revenues. Staff’s recommended service reductions are estimated to reduce annual operating costs by approximately $211,500, and the proposed on-demand passenger fare is estimated to generate approximately $206,314 annually (at $5 per passenger). Transit operations will continue to be funded through a combination of OCTA Project V grant funding, Transportation Development Act (TDA) revenues, passenger fare revenues, and parking revenue via transfers from the Parking Fund.

Accordingly, City staff is recommending that the City Council (1) authorize the City Manager to execute a contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with LAZ for a five year term with scope of services at existing levels except for a reduction in (a) off season trolley services (i.e., Thurston, Weekend Coastal and Canyon) and (b) off season on demand service, as both are reflected in Figure 4; and (2) authorize the City Manager to initiate a program whereby the City charges for on demand services (Laguna Local) in the amount of up to $5 per passenger, as reflected in Figure 6.

DISCUSSION
Background:

The City operates a year-round trolley and on-demand system that provides free, environmentally friendly transportation for both residents and visitors. The trolley system is an integral part of the City’s parking management plan and helps reduce downtown parking demand and traffic congestion by allowing visitors to utilize peripheral parking lots and ride the trolley throughout the City. Until 2021, the trolley system services were provided by City employees. Due to COVID-19 and the resulting shutdown of the trolley system, on August 11, 2020, the City Council directed staff to prepare an RFP to solicit bids for a contracted operator1. In May 2021, LAZ was awarded a five-year contract to provide trolley services for a total compensation amount of $10,621,219. In Fall 2021, the City added on-demand services as a pilot program.

Since that time, the City Council has made a number of modifications to the services. In December of 2024, the City Council approved all of the amendments into one contract amendment for a total compensation amount of $16,010,219. The following table identifies the contract changes and the City Council approval dates.
1 The contract model involves the contractor providing all drivers, dispatchers, and administrative staff supporting the trolley and on-demand services and the City providing a Transit Supervisor, trolley ambassadors during the summer months, and part-time fuelers/washers. The contract model has reduced the administrative burden on the Administrative Services Department (consisting of Finance and Human Resources) as there is no longer the City responsibility of hiring and administering 90-100 seasonal employees. The contract model also provides the City with flexibility to meet service demands and reduces the City’s risk related to accident, injury, and workers’ compensation claims. 2 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

Figure 1
Contract Scope Modifications
Date Scope Modifications
May 27, 2021 Original Contract
July 27, 2021 Laguna Local On-Demand Program
April 12, 2022 Summer Beach Trolley
September 20, 2022 Expanded Laguna Local On-Demand Program March 21, 2023 Expand trolley and on-demand service
April 23, 2024 Expand Laguna Local On-Demand service hours from June 28, 2024 to September 2, 2024
October 22, 2024 Laguna Canyon Service, Off-Season Trolley and one month of Summer Breeze December 10, 2024 First Amendment to Agreement – restated costs to cover Fiscal Year 2021-22 through Fiscal Year 2025-26
Based on the City’s receipt of OCTA Measure M2 Project V grant funding, the City is required to competitively procure transit operating services every five years to maintain the eligibility for grant funding.

In October 2024, the City Council executed two Cooperative Agreements with OCTA totaling $7.24 million in Measure M2 grant funding through Fiscal Year 2030-31. Project V grants funds for the Laguna Canyon Road/El Toro Road Laguna Local Service for a 50% match and expanded trolley service for an 11% match.

As part of the cooperative agreements, the City must continue to provide Summer Breeze, Winter Express, Weekend Coastal, and Canyon On-Demand as shown below:

Service Line Grant Amount
Through 2030-31
Off-Season Weekend and Seasonal Service (includes Summer Breeze, Winter Express and Coastal) $5,212,250
Laguna Canyon Road/El Toro Laguna Local Service $2,024,489 Total $7,236,739
Procurement Approach
On March 2, 2026, staff issued an RFP for contracted trolley and on-demand services electronically via PlanetBids. A total of 50 bidders were invited to participate in the bidding process. The City also held a non-mandatory pre-proposal conference on Thursday, March 19, 2026, which four bidders attended. The City responded to all questions submitted both in writing and during the pre-proposal conference. The RFP requested that the prospective contractors propose a budget and work plan to provide drivers, dispatchers, and administrative staff necessary to operate the City’s trolley system and on-demand model.

On March 26, 2026, two proposals were received by the deadline. An evaluation committee consisting of four City employees met to review all proposals received. Proposals submitted are listed below in alphabetical order:
3 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

Proposals Received
Firm Location
LAZ Parking Costa Mesa, CA
Propark Mobility Bellflower, CA
The Evaluation of the Proposals. The proposals were evaluated based on the work plan (30%), past performance (20%), staffing3, project organization, and management plan (30%), and cost (20%). On April 8, 2026, the committee reviewed the proposals based on the evaluation criteria listed above. Below is a brief summary of how the proposals differ in terms of work plan, past performance, staffing, project organization, management plan, and cost.

Figure 2
Summary of Proposals
Topic LAZ Propark
Work Plan The workplan was strong and
clearly identified how the vendor
would provide the service, deal
with changes in service levels
and work with the city.

The workplan did not take into
consideration the unique
characteristics of Laguna Beach
and the two services which were
requested by the City. The plan
was not clear on how they would
provide services.

Past Performance The City has firsthand experience
with LAZ and how it manages
the operations and staff felt they
have provided excellent service
to the community.

Propark has provided fixed route
services, and a dial-a-ride
program, however staff did not
believe this fit as well with the
community.

Staffing, project organization,
and management plan
The staffing plan and ability for
LAZ to keep staffing available
for the City and manage the
operations is effective.

There are currently few staff
members who could staff the
contract. All employees would
have to be hired.

Cost The cost of this proposal is
aligned with current fees.

Lower costs but with other
concerns with the other
categories, staff believes this is
not the most important criteria.

Based on the evaluation of the written proposal, the evaluation committee selected LAZ as the highestranking firm. 3 In California, public transit agency RFPs include a 10-percentage point bonus for proposers who comply with California Labor Code Sections 1070–1074. This requirement specifically relates to the retention of employees from the previous contractor during service transitions. Although Propark Mobility indicated it would retain employees from LAZ during a service transitions, a 10- percentage point bonus did not tip the scale to recommend awarding the contract to Propark Mobility. 4 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

LAZ is the second-largest parking and transportation company in the United States, and currently operates in 33 states and 400 cities, including multiple locations in Orange County. LAZ proposed an experienced project team with relevant experience providing similar local transportation services, as well as experience complying with OCTA's Project V grant requirements and other state and federal reporting requirements.

LAZ's experience with trolley operations in Orange County is one of its strongest qualifications. LAZ operates trolley services for the cities of Dana Point, San Clemente, San Juan Capistrano, Newport Beach, and Mission Viejo. It also operates shuttle services for Kaiser Hospital, UC Irvine Medical Center, and the Orange County Fairgrounds, as well as airport services at LAX airport.

The LAZ proposal clearly demonstrated the team's knowledge and understanding of the City of Laguna Beach's trolley operation and reporting requirements and emphasized their commitment to providing superior customer service while meeting or exceeding performance metrics. The evaluation committee also gave LAZ high marks for their on-demand proposal to replace hourly neighborhood trolley service, which would utilize the City's Laguna Beach Trolley app to allow residents to request a ride and track the progress of their vehicle. Staff will return to the City Council to provide additional details on the proposed ondemand pilot program this summer, following discussions with the selected contractor. LAZ also had the strongest plan for recruitment and retention of trolley drivers to ensure sufficient staffing, particularly during peak periods, and will bring a well-established safety and training program. LAZ offers a competitive salary and benefits package
The annual cost proposed by LAZ for the five-year term is included in the table below. This analysis is based on the trolley and on-demand services operating at the same hours as was most recently approved by the City Council on December 10, 2024.

Figure 3
Five-Year Cost at Current Services Levels
Contract Year Trolley Service On-Demand Service Total Cost Year 1 $2,382,037.67 $1,370,513.43 $3,752,569.10
Year 2 $2,382,037.67 $1,370,513.43 $3,752,569.10
Year 3 $2,382,037.67 $1,370,513.43 $3,752,569.10
Year 4 $2,561,121.00 $1,370,485.00 $3,931,606.00
Year 5 $2,659,412.00 $1,254,065.00 $3,913,477.00
Total $12,366,646.00 $6,736,144.00 $19,102,790.00
Options to Reduce Off- Season Services and Increase Revenues As a result of the RFP process and the resulting cost proposals associated with maintaining service levels at the current operation, City staff has researched some options to reduce service levels and reduce costs, including the following: (1) reduce off season trolley service (i.e., Thurston Charter, Weekend Coastal and Canyon); and (2) reduce off season on demand service (i.e., On Demand and Canyon On-Demand). Such proposed reductions would reduce the expense by $211,540.

The off-season is defined here to be from after Labor Day to mid-June. Please note that as to the Thurston Charter, the City intends to reach out to the Laguna Beach Unified School District to see if some partnership or subsidy from the District could assist in funding this program, which benefits its students. 5 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

See below:

Figure 4
Recommended Reduction in Services and Costs for Trolley and On Demand Services 6 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

Summary of Recommended Services Modifications
Service Proposed Modification
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Thurston Charter Service Reduce off-season operations $45,000 Weekend Coastal Service Reduce off-season frequency/service hours $68,500 Canyon Service Reduce off-season operations $42,000
Laguna Local On-Demand Service Reduce off-season service levels $56,040 Total Estimated Annual Savings $211,540
The recommended operational modifications were developed to maintain compliance with OCTA Measure M2 Project V grant requirements. Staff evaluated the proposed reductions to ensure the City would continue operating the minimum qualifying transit services required under the cooperative agreements, including Summer Breeze, Winter Express, Weekend Coastal, and Canyon On-Demand services. As proposed, the recommended service reductions would not impact the City’s eligibility for existing Project V grant funding. Staff will continue to monitor ridership, service performance, and grant compliance requirements throughout the term of the agreement.

City staff has also research some options to increase revenues by charging for On-Demand services, including the following alternative options: (1) charge a fee for the on demand service per passenger ($2, $3, $4, or $5 at current services levels; and (2) charge a fee for the on demand service per passenger ($2, $3, $4, or $5 at reduced on-demand service levels, discussed above.

Figure 5
Increased Revenue for On-Demand at Current Service Levels Fare Amount Estimated Annual Revenue
$2.00 per passenger $156,622.00
$3.00 per passenger $234,933.00
$4.00 per passenger $313,244.00
$5.00 per passenger $391,555.00
Figure 6
Increased Revenue for On-Demand at Reduced Service Levels Fare Revenue Estimated Annual Revenue
$2.00 per passenger $82,525.43
$3.00 per passenger $123,788.15
$4.00 per passenger $165,050.87
$5.00 per passenger $206,313.59

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The proposed agreement with LAZ Parking California, LLC (“LAZ”) for trolley and on-demand transit services has a total not-to-exceed compensation amount of $19,102,790 over the five-year agreement term 7 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031. The agreement provides for continued operation of the City’s trolley and Laguna Local on-demand transit services at current service levels.

As part of the operational review process, staff evaluated opportunities to reduce ongoing Transit Fund subsidy requirements while maintaining compliance with Orange County Transportation Authority (“OCTA”) Measure M2 Project V grant requirements. Staff is recommending targeted reductions to certain off-season trolley and on-demand services, including reductions to Thurston Charter, Weekend Coastal, Canyon, and off-season Laguna Local services. These recommended service adjustments are estimated to reduce annual operating costs by approximately $211,540 annually. Staff also evaluated the implementation of passenger fares for Laguna Local on-demand services. Based on the recommended reduced service model, implementing a $5 per passenger fare is estimated to generate approximately $206,314 in additional revenue annually.

Figure 7
Five-Year Estimated Financial Impact
Contract
Year
Current
Service Cost
Reduced
Service Cost
Estimated
Annual
Savings
Estimated
Fare
Revenue*
Estimated Net
Reduction to
Parking Fund
Subsidy
Year 1 $3,752,569 $3,541,029 $211,540 $206,314 $417,854 Year 2 $3,752,569 $3,541,029 $211,540 $206,314 $417,854 Year 3 $3,752,569 $3,541,029 $211,540 $206,314 $417,854 Year 4 $3,931,606 $3,720,066 $211,540 $206,314 $417,854 Year 5 $3,913,477 $3,701,937 $211,540 $206,314 $417,854 Total $19,102,790 $18,045,090 $1,057,700 $1,031,570 $2,089,270 *Estimated fare revenue based on implementation of a $5 per passenger fare under the reduced service model.

The proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Transit Fund budget, which is currently under review and subject to change, includes approximately $6.4 million in expenditures associated with trolley and on-demand transit operations, including contracted operating services, transit administration, maintenance, fuel, technology, and related operational costs.

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Proposed Transit Funding Summary Amount LAZ Operating Contract Services $3,752,569
Other Transit Operating Costs $2,626,142
Total Transit Fund Expenditures $6,378,711
OCTA Project V Grant Revenue ($1,033,900)
TDA Revenue ($1,480,411)
Estimated Passenger Fare Revenue ($206,314)
Other Transit Revenue ($654,086)
Estimated Parking Fund Transfer $3,004,000
8 of 170

CONTRACT SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR TROLLEY AND ON-DEMAND TRANSIT

SERVICES AND OPTIONS TO REDUCE OFF-SEASON SERVICE COSTS AND

IMPLEMENTATION OF ON-DEMAND PASSENGER FARES
May 12, 2026

Transit operations will continue to be funded through a combination of OCTA Project V grant funding, Transportation Development Act (“TDA”) revenues, passenger fare revenue, and transfers from the Parking Fund. The Parking Fund transfer amount will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget adoption process. Funding for future years of the agreement will remain subject to annual City Council budget approval.

The City would not propose these changes in services as well as the fare if costs were not so significant.

Many difficult decisions have had to be made in regards to the City’s overall operational budget, and this is another area where the change is consequential.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. Here, the recommended action meets the exemption because it involves authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement for services that are currently provided or services less than those that are currently provided. Upon taking the recommended action, City staff will cause to be filed within five calendar days a notice of statutory exemption with the County and State Clearinghouse.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Professional Services Agreement with LAZ Parking California, LLC for Trolley and On-Demand Transit Services (Pgs. 10-57)
Submitted By: Alexis Braun Approved: .David A Kiff
Alexis Braun, Acting Director of
Transit and Community Services
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Carol Jacobs, Management Specialist Alexis Braun, Acting Director of Transit and Community Services
9 of 170
-1- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

1. PARTIES AND DATE.

This Agreement #__________ is made and entered into this _____ day of ________, 20___, by and between the City of Laguna Beach, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, California 92651 ("City") and LAZ Parking, California a California Limited Liability Company, with its principal place of business at 949 South Coast Drive, Suite 515, Costa Mesa, CA, 92626 ("Consultant"). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to herein as "Party" and collectively as "Parties."

2. RECITALS.

2.1 Consultant.

Consultant desires to perform and assume responsibility for the provision of certain professional services required by the City on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

Consultant represents that it is experienced in providing Trolley and On-Demand services to public clients, is licensed in the State of California, and is familiar with the plans of City.

2.2 Project.

City desires to engage Consultant to render such professional services for the Trolley and On-Demand Services project ("Project") as set forth in this Agreement.

3. TERMS.

3.1 Scope of Services and Term.

3.1.1 General Scope of Services. Consultant promises and agrees to furnish to the City all labor, materials, tools, equipment, services, and incidental and customary work necessary to fully and adequately supply the professional drivers and support staff to operate the City’s trolley service and on-demand rideshare services necessary for the Project ("Services").

The Services are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. All Services shall be subject to, and performed in accordance with, this Agreement, the exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations.
10 of 170
-2- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.1.2 Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2031, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. Consultant shall complete the Services within the term of this Agreement, and shall meet any other established schedules and deadlines. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement if necessary to complete the Services.

3.2 Compensation.

3.2.1 Compensation. Consultant shall receive compensation, including authorized reimbursements, for all Services rendered under this Agreement at the rates set forth in Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The total compensation shall not exceed Nineteen million, one hundred and two thousand seven hundred and ninety dollars ($19,102,790) without written approval of the City Council or City Manager, as applicable.

Extra Work may be authorized, as described below, and if authorized, will be compensated at the rates and manner set forth in this Agreement.

3.2.2 Payment of Compensation. Consultant shall submit to City a monthly invoice which indicates work completed and hours of Services rendered by Consultant. The invoice shall describe the amount of Services provided since the initial commencement date, or since the start of the subsequent billing periods, as appropriate, through the date of the invoice.

City shall, within 30 days of receiving such invoice, review the invoice and pay all non-disputed and approved charges. If the City disputes any of Consultant's fees, the City shall give written notice to Consultant within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth therein. Payment shall not constitute acceptance of any Services completed by Consultant. The making of final payment shall not constitute a waiver of any claims by the City for any reason whatsoever. Failure to submit an invoice within ninety (90) days of any service(s) or good(s) provided shall constitute an absolute waiver of any right to payment for such service(s) and/or good(s), and City shall have no obligation to review, process, or pay any invoice submitted after the expiration of the ninety (90) day period.

3.2.3 Reimbursement for Expenses. Consultant shall not be reimbursed for any expenses unless authorized in writing by City, or included in Exhibit "C" of this Agreement.

3.2.4 Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform Extra Work. As used herein, "Extra Work" means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the Parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement.

Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, Extra Work without written authorization from the City.

3.3 Responsibilities of Consultant.

3.3.1 Independent Contractor; Control and Payment of Subordinates. The Services shall be performed by Consultant or under its supervision. Consultant will determine the means, methods and details of performing the Services subject to the requirements of this Agreement. City retains Consultant on an independent contractor basis and not as an employee.

Any personnel performing the Services on behalf of Consultant shall not be employees of City and shall at all times be under Consultant's exclusive direction and control. Neither City, or any 11 of 170
-3- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
of its officials, officers, directors, employees or agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultants officers, employees or agents, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall pay all wages, salaries, and other amounts due such personnel in connection with their performance of Services under this Agreement and as required by law.

Consultant shall be responsible for all reports and obligations respecting such additional personnel, including, but not limited to: social security taxes, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and workers' compensation insurance.

3.3.2 Schedule of Services. Consultant shall perform the Services in a prompt and timely manner and in accordance with the Schedule of Services set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Consultant represents that it has the professional and technical personnel required to perform the Services expeditiously. Upon request of City, Consultant shall provide a more detailed schedule of anticipated performance to meet the Schedule of Services.

3.3.3 Conformance to Applicable Requirements. All work prepared by Consultant shall be subject to the approval of City.

3.3.4 City's Representative. The City hereby designates Alexis Braun, Acting Director of Transportation and Community Services, or his/her designee, to act as its representative in all matters pertaining to the administration and performance of this Agreement ("City's Representative"). City's Representative shall have the power to act on behalf of the City for review and approval of all products submitted by Consultant but not the authority to enlarge the Scope of Services or change the total compensation due to Consultant under this Agreement.

The City Manager shall be authorized to act on City's behalf and to execute all necessary documents which enlarge the Scope of Services or change the Consultant's total compensation subject to the provisions contained in this Agreement. Consultant shall not accept direction or orders from any person other than the City Manager, City's Representative or his/her designee.

3.3.5 Consultant's Representative. Consultant hereby designates Dane Nielsen Regional Vice President, or his/her designee, to act as its representative for the performance of this Agreement ("Consultant's Representative"). Consultant's Representative shall have full authority to represent and act on behalf of the Consultant for all purposes under this Agreement.

The Consultant's Representative shall supervise and direct the Services, using his/her best skill and attention, and shall be responsible for all means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures and for the satisfactory coordination of all portions of the Services under this Agreement.

3.3.6 Coordination of Services. Consultant agrees to work closely with City staff in the performance of Services and shall be available to City's staff, consultants and other staff at all reasonable times.

3.3.7 Standard of Care; Performance of Employees. Consultant shall perform all Services under this Agreement in a skillful and competent manner, consistent with the standards generally recognized as being employed by professionals in the same discipline in the State of California. Consultant represents and maintains that it is skilled in the professional calling necessary to perform the Services. Consultant warrants that all employees and subconsultants shall have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. Consultant 12 of 170
-4- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
represents that it, its employees and subconsultants have all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services, and that such licenses and approvals shall be maintained throughout the term of this Agreement. Consultant shall perform, at its own cost and expense and without reimbursement from the City, any services necessary to correct errors or omissions which are caused by the Consultant's failure to comply with the standard of care provided for herein. Any employee of the Consultant or its subconsultants who is determined by the City to be uncooperative, incompetent, a threat to the adequate or timely completion of the Project, a threat to the safety of persons or property, or any employee who fails or refuses to perform the Services in a manner acceptable to the City, shall be promptly removed from the Project by the Consultant and shall not be re-employed to perform any of the Services or to work on the Project.

3.3.8 Period of Performance.

3.3.8.1 Consultant shall perform and complete all Services under this Agreement within the term set forth in Section 3.1.2 above (“Performance Time”). Consultant shall also perform the Services in strict accordance with any completion schedule or Project milestones described in Exhibits “A” or “B” attached hereto, or which may be separately agreed upon in writing by the City and Consultant (“Performance Milestones”). Consultant agrees that if the Services are not completed within the aforementioned Performance Time and/or pursuant to any such Performance Milestones developed pursuant to provisions of this Agreement, it is understood, acknowledged and agreed that the City will suffer damage.

3.3.8.2 Neither City nor Consultant shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing Party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include a Force Majeure Event. A Force Majeure Event shall mean an event that materially affects a Party’s performance and is one or more of the following: (1) Acts of God or other natural disasters; (2) terrorism or other acts of a public enemy; (3) orders of governmental authorities (including, without limitation, unreasonable and unforeseeable delay in the issuance of permits or approvals by governmental authorities that are required for the services); (4) strikes and other organized labor action occurring at the site and the effects thereof on the services, only to the extent such strikes and other organized labor action are beyond the control of Consultant and its subcontractors, and to the extent the effects thereof cannot be avoided by use of replacement workers; and (5) pandemics, epidemics or quarantine restrictions. For purposes of this section, “orders of governmental authorities,” includes ordinances, emergency proclamations and orders, rules to protect the public health, welfare and safety, and other actions of a public agency applicable to the services and Agreement.

3.3.8.3 Should a Force Majeure Event occur, the non-performing Party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other Party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement. Force Majeure Events and/or delays, regardless of the Party responsible for the delay, shall not entitle Consultant to any additional compensation.

Notwithstanding the foregoing in this section, the City may still terminate this Agreement in accordance with the termination provisions of this Agreement.

3.3.9 Laws and Regulations; Employee/Labor Certification. 13 of 170
-5- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.3.9.1 Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall keep itself fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations in any manner affecting the performance of the Project or the Services, including all Cal/OSHA requirements, and shall give all notices required by law. Consultant shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with the Services and this Agreement. All violations of such laws and regulations shall be grounds for the City to terminate the Agreement for cause.

3.3.9.2 Employment Eligibility; Consultant. Consultant certifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same. Consultant certifies that it has not committed a violation of any such law within the five (5) years immediately preceding the date of execution of this Agreement, and shall not violate any such law at any time during the term of the Agreement.

3.3.9.3 Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subconsultant, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, handicap, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also comply with all relevant provisions of City's Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted.

3.3.9.4 Air Quality. To the extent applicable, Consultant must fully comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in furnishing or using equipment and/or providing services, including, but not limited to, emissions limits and permitting requirements imposed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and/or California Air Resources Board (CARB). Consultant shall indemnify City against any fines or penalties imposed by SCAQMD, CARB, or any other governmental or regulatory agency for violations of applicable laws, rules and/or regulations by Consultant, its subconsultants, or others for whom Consultant is responsible under its indemnity obligations provided for in this Agreement.

3.3.9.5 Water Quality Management and Compliance. Consultant shall keep itself and all subcontractors, staff, and employees fully informed of and in compliance with all local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations that may impact, or be implicated by the performance of the Services including, without limitation, all applicable provisions of the City’s ordinances regulating water quality and storm water; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.); the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Water Code § 13000 et seq.); and any and all regulations, policies, or permits issued pursuant to any such authority. Consultant must additionally comply with the lawful requirements of the City, and any other municipality, drainage district, or other local agency with jurisdiction over the location where the Services are to be conducted, regulating water quality and storm water discharges. City may seek damages from Consultant for delay in completing the Services caused by Consultant’s failure to comply with the laws, regulations and policies described in this Section, or any other relevant water quality law, regulation, or policy.
14 of 170
-6- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.3.9.6 Safety. Consultant shall execute and maintain its work so as to avoid injury or damage to any person or property. In carrying out its Services, the Consultant shall at all times be in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations, and shall exercise all necessary precautions for the safety of employees appropriate to the nature of the work and the conditions under which the work is to be performed.

3.3.10 Insurance. The City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage, or other special circumstances. If the existing policies do not meet the insurance requirements set forth herein, Consultant agrees to amend, supplement, or endorse the policies to do so. Without limiting the indemnity provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the following policies of insurance.

3.3.10.1 Minimum Scope and Limit of Insurance
(A) Commercial General Liability (CGL) which affords coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office “occurrence” form CG 00 01, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury, and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
(B) Commercial Auto Insurance. Consultant shall maintain commercial auto insurance in an amount not less than $5,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage liability arising out of or in connection with the services to be performed under this Agreement. Liability coverages shall be provided for Consultant’s owned, non-owned; and hired autos and trolleys; and for City’s owned trolleys. The policy shall be endorsed to specifically cover City owned trolleys operated by Consultant for bodily injury and property damage liability. Coverage shall include uninsured motorist, and medical payments.

Comprehensive physical damage and collision coverage shall be included for Consultant’s owned trolleys and provide for the full replacement cost of vehicles and the Consultant shall be solely responsible for the deductible.
(C) Workers’ Compensation as required by the State of
California with statutory limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of not less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease.
(D) Professional Liability Insurance with minimum limit of not less than $1,000,000 each claim and $2,000,000 aggregate. Covered professional services shall specifically include all work to be performed under the Agreement and delete any exclusion that may potentially delete coverage for the services to be performed.

3.3.10.2 Endorsements
(A) Insurance policies shall not be compliant if they include any limiting provision or endorsement contrary to this Agreement, including but not limited to restricting coverage to the sole liability of Consultant, excluding contractual liability or excluding third party over actions. The following endorsements shall be provided to the City. 15 of 170
-7- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
(B) Commercial General Liability and Commercial Automobile Liability Policies:
(1) Additional Insured: The City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives are to be covered as additional insureds for the liability and defense of suits or claims arising out of the services or operations performed by or on behalf of the Consultant
including materials, parts, or equipment furnished in
connection with such services or operations. Commercial General Liability additional insured endorsements shall be at least as broad as ISO Form(s) CG 20 10 11 85; or both CG 20 10 or CG 20 26, and CG 20 37. The auto policy shall be endorsed to specifically cover bodily injury and property damage liability for City owned trolleys operated by
Consultant.
(2) Primary and Non-Contributory: This insurance is primary to and will not seek contribution from any other insurance whether primary, excess, umbrella, or contingent insurance, including deductible, or self-insurance available to the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives as additional insureds. The Commercial General Liability primary and noncontributory endorsement shall be at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04

13. (C) Workers’ Compensation:
(1) Waiver of Subrogation: Any right of subrogation against the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, boards, agents, and representatives shall be waived.

3.3.10.3 Insurance Obligations of Consultant. The City requires and shall be entitled to the Consultant’s broader coverage and/or the higher limits if Consultant maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above. Any available insurance proceeds excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the City. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Consultant under this Agreement.

3.3.10.4 Notice Of Cancellation. Required insurance policies shall not be cancelled or coverage reduced until thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation has been served upon the City, except ten (10) days written notice of cancellation shall be allowed for non-payment of premium.

3.3.10.5 Waiver Of Subrogation. Required insurance policies shall not prohibit Consultant from waiving the right of subrogation prior to a loss. The Consultant shall waive all rights of subrogation against the indemnified parties and policies shall contain or be endorsed 16 of 170
-8- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
to contain such a provision. This provision applies regardless of whether the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.

3.3.10.6 Evidence Of Insurance. All policies, endorsements, certificates, and/or binders shall be subject to approval by the City as to form and content. These requirements are subject to amendment or waiver only if approved in writing by the City. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the expiration of any such policy, evidence of insurance showing that such insurance coverage has been renewed or extended shall be filed with the City. If such coverage is cancelled or reduced, Consultant shall, within ten (10) days after receipt of written notice of such cancellation or reduction of coverage, file with the City evidence of insurance showing that the required insurance has been reinstated or has been provided through another insurance company or companies.

3.3.10.7 Self-Insured Retention. Self-insured retentions (SIR’s) must be declared to and approved by the City. The City may require Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower retention or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the SIR. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or the City. Selfinsured retentions shall be the sole responsibility of Consultant, or subcontractor who procured such insurance. The City may deduct from any amounts otherwise due Consultant to fund the SIR. The policy must also provide that defense costs, including the allocated loss adjustment expenses, will satisfy the SIR.

3.3.10.8 Contractual Liability. The coverage provided shall apply to the obligations assumed by Consultant under the indemnity provisions of this Agreement.

3.3.10.9 Failure To Maintain Coverage. The Consultant agrees to suspend and cease all operations hereunder during such time as the required insurance coverage is not in effect and evidence of insurance has not been furnished to the City. The City shall have the right to withhold any payment due until the Consultant has fully complied with the insurance provisions of this Agreement. If the Consultant’s operations are suspended for failure to maintain required insurance coverage, Consultant shall not be entitled to an extension of time for completion of the services because of production lost during suspension.

3.3.10.10 Acceptability Of Insurers. Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law. Any other rating must be approved in writing by the City.

3.3.10.11 Claims Made Policies. If coverage is written on a claims-made basis, the retroactive date of such insurance and all subsequent insurance shall coincide or precede the effective date of Consultant’s Agreement with the City and continuous coverage shall be maintained, or an extended reporting period shall be exercised for a period of at least ten (10) years from termination or expiration of this Agreement. 17 of 170
-9- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.3.10.12 Excess Umbrella Liability Policies. If any excess or umbrella liability policies are used to meet the limits of liability required by this Agreement, then said policies shall be “following form” of the underlying policy coverage, terms, conditions, and provisions and shall meet all the insurance requirements stated in this Agreement, including, but not limited to the additional insured, primary & non-contributory and waiver of subrogation insurance requirements stated herein. No insurance policies or self-insurance maintained by the City, whether primary, reinsurance or excess, and which also apply to a loss covered hereunder, shall be called upon to contribute to a loss until Consultant’s primary and excess/umbrella liability policies are exhausted.

3.3.10.13 Insurance For Subcontractors. Consultant shall be responsible for causing subcontractors to purchase the same types and limits of insurance in compliance with the terms of this Agreement, including adding the City as an additional insured, providing primary and non-contributory coverage and waiver of subrogation to the subcontractor’s policies.

3.4 Labor Code Requirements.

3.4.1 Prevailing Wages. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., ("Prevailing Wage Laws"), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on "public works" and "maintenance" projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable "public works" or "maintenance" project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. City shall provide Consultant with a copy of the prevailing rates of per diem wages in effect at the commencement of this Agreement. Consultant shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Consultant's principal place of business and at the project site. It is the intent of the parties to effectuate the requirements of sections 1771, 1774, 1775, 1776, 1777.5, 1813, and 1815 of the Labor Code within this Agreement, and Consultant shall therefore comply with such Labor Code sections to the fullest extent required by law. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws.

3.4.2 Registration/DIR Compliance. If the Services are being performed on a public works project of over $25,000 when the project is for construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work, or a public works project of over $15,000 when the project is for maintenance work, in addition to the foregoing, then pursuant to Labor Code sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants.

3.4.3 Compliance Monitoring. This Project may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the DIR. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements, including the submission of payroll records directly to the DIR. Any stop orders issued by the DIR against Consultant or any subconsultant that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be 18 of 170
-10- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the DIR against Consultant or any subconsultant.

3.4.4 Labor Certification. By its signature hereunder, Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services.

3.5 Termination of Agreement.

3.5.1 Grounds for Termination. City may, by written notice to Consultant, terminate the whole or any part of this Agreement at any time and without cause by giving written notice to Consultant of such termination, and specifying the effective date thereof, at least seven (7) days before the effective date of such termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be compensated only for those Services which have been adequately rendered to City, and Consultant shall be entitled to no further compensation. Consultant may not terminate this Agreement except for cause. The rights and remedies of the City provided in this section shall not be exclusive and are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law, equity or under this Agreement.

3.5.2 Effect of Termination. If this Agreement is terminated as provided herein, City may require Consultant to provide all finished or unfinished Documents and Data and other information of any kind prepared by Consultant in connection with the performance of Services under this Agreement. Consultant shall be required to provide such document and other information within fifteen (15) days of the request.

3.5.3 Additional Services. In the event this Agreement is terminated in whole or in part as provided herein, City may procure, upon such terms and in such manner as it may determine appropriate, services similar to those terminated.

3.6 Indemnification.

3.6.1 To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s Services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees 19 of 170
-11- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses except such loss or damage caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall survive expiration or termination of this Agreement and shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consultant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.

3.6.2 If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance as a “design professional” (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

3.7 General Provisions.

3.7.1 Accounting Records. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to all costs and expenses incurred under this Agreement. All such records shall be clearly identifiable. Consultant shall allow a representative of City during normal business hours to examine, audit, and make transcripts or copies of such records and any other documents created pursuant to this Agreement. Consultant shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings, and activities related to the Agreement for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under this Agreement.

3.7.2 Independent Contractors and Subcontracting.

3.7.2.1 Use of Consultants. Consultant is aware of statutory and case law regarding classification of workers as independent contractors, including California Labor Code Section 2750.3 and Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court, 4 Cal. 5th 903 (2018). To ensure that Consultant is in compliance with the California Labor Code, Consultant shall only utilize its employees to provide the Services. Consultant may not provide the services through any independent contractor, subcontractor or subconsultant (“Subcontractor(s)”) unless approved by the City as set forth in Section 3.7.2.2 below. Consultant represents and warrants that all personnel who perform the Services on Consultant’s behalf are Consultant’s employees, and that Consultant complies with all applicable laws, rules and regulations governing its employees, including, but not limited to, the California Labor Code, Unemployment Insurance Code and all applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders.

3.7.2.2 Prior Approval Required. Consultant shall not use any Subcontractor to provide the Services, or any portion of the work required by this Agreement, without prior written approval of City. In the event that City authorizes Consultant to use a Subcontractor, Consultant shall enter into a written agreement with the Subcontractor, which must include all provisions of the Agreement, including a restriction on the Subcontractor’s use of further independent contractors, subcontractors or subconsultants without the City’s prior written consent.
20 of 170
-12- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.7.3 Delivery of Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be given to the respective parties at the following address, or at such other address as the respective parties may provide in writing for this purpose:

Consultant: LAZ Parking California
949 South Coast Drive, Suite 515]
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
ATTN: Dane Nielsen, Regional Vice President
City: City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach CA 92651
ATTN: Alexis Braun, Acting Director, Transportation and Community Services
Such notice shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed, forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid and addressed to the party at its applicable address. Actual notice shall be deemed adequate notice on the date actual notice occurred, regardless of the method of service.

3.7.4 Ownership of Materials and Confidentiality.

3.7.4.1 Documents & Data; Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non-exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, modify, reuse, or sublicense any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in plans, specifications, studies, drawings, estimates, and other documents or works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, including but not limited to, physical drawings or data magnetically or otherwise recorded on computer diskettes, which are prepared or caused to be prepared by Consultant under this Agreement ("Documents & Data"). All Documents & Data shall be and remain the property of City, and shall not be used in whole or in substantial part by Consultant on other projects without the City’s express written permission. Within thirty (30) days following the completion, suspension, abandonment or termination of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide to City reproducible copies of all Documents & Data, in a form and amount required by City. City reserves the right to select the method of document reproduction and to establish where the reproduction will be accomplished. The reproduction expense shall be borne by City at the actual cost of duplication. In the event of a dispute regarding the amount of compensation to which the Consultant is entitled under the termination provisions of this Agreement, Consultant shall provide all Documents & Data to City upon payment of the undisputed amount. Consultant shall have no right to retain or fail to provide to City any such documents pending resolution of the dispute. In addition, Consultant shall retain copies of all Documents & Data on file for a minimum of fifteen (15) years following completion of the Project, and shall make copies available to City upon the payment of actual reasonable duplication costs. Before destroying the Documents & Data following this retention period, Consultant shall make a reasonable effort to notify City and provide City with the opportunity to obtain the documents.

3.7.4.2 Subconsultants. Consultant shall require all subconsultants to agree in writing that City is granted a non-exclusive and perpetual license for any Documents & Data the subconsultant prepares under this Agreement. Consultant represents and warrants that 21 of 170
-13- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
Consultant has the legal right to license any and all Documents & Data. Consultant makes no such representation and warranty in regard to Documents & Data which were prepared by design professionals other than Consultant or its subconsultants, or those provided to Consultant by the City.

3.7.4.3 Right to Use. City shall not be limited in any way in its use or reuse of the Documents and Data or any part of them at any time for purposes of this Project or another project, provided that any such use not within the purposes intended by this Agreement or on a project other than this Project without employing the services of Consultant shall be at City’s sole risk. If City uses or reuses the Documents & Data on any project other than this Project, it shall remove the Consultant’s seal from the Documents & Data and indemnify and hold harmless Consultant and its officers, directors, agents and employees from claims arising out of the negligent use or re-use of the Documents & Data on such other project. Consultant shall be responsible and liable for its Documents & Data, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, only with respect to the condition of the Documents & Data at the time they are provided to the City upon completion, suspension, abandonment or termination. Consultant shall not be responsible or liable for any revisions to the Documents & Data made by any party other than Consultant, a party for whom the Consultant is legally responsible or liable, or anyone approved by the Consultant.

3.7.4.4 Indemnification. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its directors, officials, officers, employees, volunteers and agents free and harmless, pursuant to the indemnification provisions of this Agreement, for any alleged infringement of any patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or any other proprietary right of any person or entity in consequence of the use on the Project by City of the Documents & Data, including any method, process, product, or concept specified or depicted.

3.7.4.5 Confidentiality. All ideas, memoranda, specifications, plans, procedures, drawings, descriptions, computer program data, input record data, written information, and other Documents & Data either created by or provided to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement shall be held confidential by Consultant. Such materials shall not, without the prior written consent of City, be used by Consultant for any purposes other than the performance of the Services. Nor shall such materials be disclosed to any person or entity not connected with the performance of the Services or the Project. Nothing furnished to Consultant which is otherwise known to Consultant or is generally known, or has become known, to the related industry shall be deemed confidential. Consultant shall not use City's name or insignia, photographs of the Project, or any publicity pertaining to the Services or the Project in any magazine, trade paper, newspaper, television or radio production or other similar medium without the prior written consent of City.

3.7.4.6 Confidential Information. The City shall refrain from releasing Consultant’s proprietary information ("Proprietary Information") unless the City's legal counsel determines that the release of the Proprietary Information is required by the California Public Records Act or other applicable state or federal law, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, in which case the City shall notify Consultant of its intention to release Proprietary Information.

Consultant shall have five (5) working days after receipt of the release notice to give City written notice of Consultant's objection to the City's release of Proprietary Information. Consultant shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, and its officers, directors, employees, and agents 22 of 170
-14- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
from and against all liability, loss, cost or expense (including attorney’s fees) arising out of a legal action brought to compel the release of Proprietary Information. City shall not release the Proprietary Information after receipt of an objection notice unless either: (1) Consultant fails to fully indemnify, defend (with City's choice of legal counsel), and hold City harmless from any legal action brought to compel such release; and/or (2) a final and non-appealable order by a court of competent jurisdiction requires that City release such information.

3.7.5 Cooperation; Further Acts. The Parties shall fully cooperate with one another, and shall take any additional acts or sign any additional documents as may be necessary, appropriate or convenient to attain the purposes of this Agreement.

3.7.6 Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior negotiations, understandings or agreements.

3.7.7 Attorneys’ Fees. If either party commences an action against the other party, either legal, administrative or otherwise, arising out of or in connection with this Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation shall be entitled to have and recover from the losing party reasonable attorneys’ fees and all costs of such action.

3.7.8 Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be in Orange County. In addition to any and all contract requirements pertaining to notices of and requests for compensation or payment for extra work, disputed work, claims and/or changed conditions, Consultant must comply with the claim procedures set forth in Government Code sections 900 et seq. prior to filing any lawsuit against the City. Such Government Code claims and any subsequent lawsuit based upon the Government Code claims shall be limited to those matters that remain unresolved after all procedures pertaining to extra work, disputed work, claims, and/or changed conditions have been followed by Consultant. If no such Government Code claim is submitted, or if any prerequisite contractual requirements are not otherwise satisfied as specified herein, Consultant shall be barred from bringing and maintaining a valid lawsuit against the City.

3.7.9 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

3.7.10 City's Right to Employ Other Consultants. City reserves right to employ other consultants in connection with this Project.

3.7.11 Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding on the successors and assigns of the parties.

3.7.12 Assignment or Transfer. Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination.

Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the Services required by this Agreement, except as expressly stated herein, without prior written approval of City. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. 23 of 170
-15- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.7.13 Construction; References; Captions. Since the Parties or their agents have participated fully in the preparation of this Agreement, the language of this Agreement shall be construed simply, according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any Party. Any term referencing time, days or period for performance shall be deemed calendar days and not work days. All references to Consultant include all personnel, employees, agents, and subconsultants of Consultant, except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. All references to City include its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers except as otherwise specified in this Agreement. The captions of the various articles and paragraphs are for convenience and ease of reference only, and do not define, limit, augment, or describe the scope, content, or intent of this Agreement.

3.7.14 Amendment; Modification. No supplement, modification, or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing and signed by both Parties.

3.7.15 Waiver. No waiver of any default shall constitute a waiver of any other default or breach, whether of the same or other covenant or condition. No waiver, benefit, privilege, or service voluntarily given or performed by a Party shall give the other Party any contractual rights by custom, estoppel, or otherwise.

3.7.16 No Third-Party Beneficiaries. There are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties.

3.7.17 Invalidity; Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.7.18 Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. Consultant further agrees to file, or shall cause its employees or subconsultants to file, a Statement of Economic Interest with the City’s Filing Officer as required under state law in the performance of the Services. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

3.7.19 Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement. Each Party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and bind each respective Party.

3.7.20 Counterparts. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original.
24 of 170
-16- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

3.7.21 Survival. All rights and obligations hereunder that by their nature are to continue after any expiration or termination of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the indemnification obligations, shall survive any such expiration or termination.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE
25 of 170
-16- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
26 of 170
-17- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4

SIGNATURE PAGE TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH AND

LAZ PARKING
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
Approved By:

Dave Kiff, City Manager
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
City Attorney
Attested By:

City Clerk

LAZ PARKING
[If Corporation, TWO SIGNATURES,
President OR Vice President AND Secretary
OR Treasurer REQUIRED]
By:

Its:

Printed Name:

By:

Its:

Printed Name:
27 of 170
-17- PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
UPDATED 2-2026
1 8
9 4
28 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "A"

SCOPE OF SERVICES

1.0 Vehicles

1.01 The total fleet size will be 21 trolleys owned and maintained by CITY. CITY is currently in the process of procuring additional trolleys, one which may be electric. The fleet may be temporarily augmented in summer season with the lease of additional trolleys based on projected ridership demand. CITY’s maximum number of trolleys is 25.

1.02 All vehicles will be dispatched from CITY’s Corporate Yard located at 1900 Laguna Canyon Road, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. CITY’s current revenue vehicle fleet is detailed in the table below:

Revenue-Service
Trolleys
Hometown
Trolley
Hometown
Trolley
Hometown
Trolley
Number 9 8 4
Length 35' 6" 32' 6" 27'
Fuel LPG LPG LPG
Seating capacity 32 30 22
Wheelchair lift Yes Yes Yes
HVAC Pro air/rear N/A Acme/ thermo king
On-Demand Vehicles
The vendor will supply (7) seven passenger hybrid vans for the on-demand service. The City prefers Toyota vans. If another type of vehicle is to be used the City must authorize the purchase.

The vendor will supply (3) three ADA accessible vans

1.03 In addition to revenue-service trolleys, above, CITY shall supply two non-revenue sedans to be used by CONSULTANT personnel. The non-revenue sedans will be fueled and maintained by CITY. CITY will NOT provide fleet vehicles for CONSULTANT’S supervisory staff. CONSULTANT shall maintain adequate fleet vehicles for this purpose.

CONSULTANT is responsible for providing any additional vehicles necessary to provide or manage the service.

1.04 CITY will designate which specific revenue-service trolley vehicle should operate on a certain route. If the designated revenue-service trolley vehicle is not available, CONSULTANT will use another vehicle and note it on the Daily Vehicle Assignment Report.
29 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

1.05 Scheduled Layover: CONSULTANT will be responsible for preparing driver schedules that provide all breaks and meal periods as required by federal, state, and local laws. Breaks and meal periods as well as scheduled deadhead hours are moved from the daily total hours to produce the Revenue Service Hours (RSH) in Exhibit C.

1.06 Schedule Changes: CITY may make changes to trolley schedules periodically. CITY will provide the new schedules to CONSULTANT at least 30 days before the effective date.

1.07 On-Demand Vehicles: CONSULTANT shall provide 10 Toyota Sienna’s for on-demand services. Preferably white in color. Vehicles shall be maintained in good working order, and any body damage shall be repaired as soon as possible by CONSULTANT.

2.0 SCOPE OF SERVICES:

2.0.1 Laguna Beach Trolley Services: CITY provides local fixed route trolley services throughout CITY and extends south to the neighboring city of Dana Point. Trolley Services include: one coastal and one canyon circulator route, as well as a weekend-only route linking peripheral parking lot in CITY of Irvine to downtown Laguna Beach. Later night services on all routes seven days a week are provided to accommodate local events. All trolleys are equipped with cameras that can be monitored by the dispatch center. A map of the trolley routes will be provided by the City.
30 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.0.2 Special Trolley Services: CITY provides special trolley services including charter service for private and community events throughout the year established through a City Council resolution. CITY of Laguna Beach’s trolley services are funded with a combination of state and local funds. The Off-Season Weekend Coastal and Summer Breeze routes are funded with a combination of state and local funds. The Off-Season Weekend Coastal and Summer Breeze routes are funded with grant funding from the Orange County Transportation Authority’s Measure M2 Project V local circulators program. CITY is not currently a direct recipient of federal funds for transit services.

2.0.3 On-Demand Services: CITY provides an on-demand micro-transit service called Laguna Local. The free service utilizes smaller, hybrid-electric minivans. Residents request a ride when they want it using a mobile app or via phone, select their preferred pick up and drop off location from more than 100 stops in North Laguna, South Laguna, Top of the World, Bluebird Canyon, Arch Beach Heights, Laguna Canyon Road, and downtown. This service is operated with eight (8) minivans with ten (10) passenger capacity in each in operation during service hours and two spare vehicles onsite. Each minivan will be equipped with a radio system that communicates with the dispatch center and a camera in each vehicle that can be monitored by the dispatch center at all times. The CONSULTANT will provide replacement vehicles as deemed necessary by CITY. All new vehicles shall be Toyota Sienna minivans unless otherwise approved by CITY. CONSULTANT may negotiate with existing vendors to purchase the existing vehicles.

2.0.4 Future Service: During the term of the Agreement, CITY may decide to operate additional trolley service within CITY or alter existing routes and schedules due to ridership demands. CITY reserves the right to reduce or increase service should this be in CITY’s best interest. CITY will give the CONSULTANT at least 30 days’ notice should a service reduction or increase be necessary that impacts more than 25 percent of revenue vehicle hours. Should this happen, CITY will negotiate with the CONSULTANT to reduce or operate additional service at or around a pro-rated cost, but may decide to procure the services under another agreement if it is in CITY’s best interest.

2.0.5 Performance Bond: As partial security against the selected Proposer’s failure to satisfactorily fulfill all of its obligations under this Agreement, a performance bond in the amount of ten (10) percent of the first five contract years (Initial Term) will be required. The performance bond shall be executed by a corporate surety authorized to conduct business as a security in the state of California.

2.5 City Responsibilities
31 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-4 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.5.1 CITY shall perform the following duties and accept the responsibilities outlined below related to the proposed Trolley service. To the extent reasonable and feasible, CONSULTANT shall assist CITY in this regard.

2.5.2 CITY’s Project Manager or designee will work closely with and provide direction to the CONSULTANT. The Project Manager or designee will provide all required information and act as liaison between CITY and CONSULTANT.

2.5.3 CITY will administer and monitor the CONSULTANT including performance monitoring and penalty assessments, audits, and overall service effectiveness. CITY staff will review monthly invoices, verify monthly reports, and process payments to CONSULTANT per Agreement, including holding regular monthly meetings with the CONSULTANT.

2.5.4 Under supervision of the Transit and Community Services Department, CITY will provide a Transit Supervisor, who will monitor, administrator, and oversee functions, responsibilities, and performance of the trolley and on-demand service system. This includes establishing overall service operations parameters for CONSULTANT and working with the CONSULTANT to develop written responses to customer complaints and inquiries.

2.5.5 Maintenance: CITY will assume all fleet maintenance responsibilities, including preventative maintenance, warranty, and fleet repair, cleaning, provision of all parts, and administration of respective contracts and vendors necessary for all maintenance functions for the entire CITY of City-provided vehicles, including the revenue-service trolleys and two non-revenue sedans. Maintenance personnel and all related maintenance functions shall be CITY’s responsibility. It is expected that CONSULTANT’S personnel shall work cooperatively with CITY personnel to ensure the efficient providing of transportation services and report and mechanical issues promptly and per the procedures outlined in this document. CITY is not responsible for CONSULTANT’S on-demand vehicles.

2.5.6 Fueling: CITY operates a revenue-service trolley fleet using Liquefied Propane Gas (LPG). The vehicles assigned to the operation under this contract will be supplied with fuel and fueled by CITY staff for both trolleys and on-demand vehicles. CITY may purchase electric vehicles and will be responsible for maintaining the charge on the alternative fuel vehicles. From time to time, due to operational needs, CONSULTANT’s personnel may be required to fuel vehicles. Contract drivers and supervisors will be trained in the operation of the fueling system. Should CITY decide to integrate other fuel types, CITY will provide necessary resources for energy and fuels to accommodate these future applications.

2.5.7 Marketing: CITY will be responsible for overall branding and marketing of the service, including preparing, printing, placing, scheduling, and paying for all advertising and promotional materials designed to inform the public about the trolley and on-demand service and promote ridership, including production of maps and timetables.

CONSULTANT will be responsible for stocking timetables, maps, and riders’ alerts on vehicles and at stops as necessary.

2.5.8 CITY reserves the exclusive right to place advertising material on the interior and/or exterior of the CITY-provided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANT-provided on-demand vehicles. CONSULTANT shall not install any 32 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-5 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
advertising material on the interior or exterior of the CITY-provided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans or the CONSULTANT-provided on-demand vehicles except as directed by CITY.

2.5.9 Bus Stops: CITY utilizes OCTA bus stops, which OCTA maintains. CITY provides signage for the stops. CITY will designate stops and install signage as needed in locations that are not owned and operated by OCTA. The CONSULTANT will not be responsible for cleaning, maintaining, or repairing the street furnishings.

2.5.10 Operations and Maintenance Facility: CITY will provide a facility for the operations and maintenance of trolley services. This facility is located at CITY’s Corporate Yard, 1900 Laguna Canyon Road, Laguna Beach, CA 92651. All operations will be housed in this facility. The facility and equipment provided by CITY may only be used to facilitate operation of trolley service and cannot be used to support any other clients. All vehicles shall be dispatched and maintained at the Corporate Yard facility.

2.5.11 Vehicle Parking: CITY will provide space at its Corporate Yard for the storage of CITYprovided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANTprovided on-demand vehicles, as well as personal vehicles of contract employees during assigned work hours.

2.5.12 Office Space & Equipment: CITY will provide office space to the selected CONSULTANT’s assigned personnel, consisting of, at a minimum, two work stations for dispatchers or administrative staff, including computer, phone, radio, and access to shared printer/scanner/copier, as well as necessary hardware, software, desks, tables, chairs, information boards, and other equipment as may be required. Costs associated with the provision of office space will be borne by CITY, and all equipment supplied shall remain property of CITY. CITY will provide and manage resources to effectively and competently operate and maintain its own technology assets. CONSULTANT is responsible for the installation and maintenance of any equipment to support CONSULTANT’s administrative requirements that are above and beyond resources provided by CITY.

2.5.13 CITY shall provide facility maintenance services required to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the property. Facility maintenance services provided by CITY staff shall include inspections and preventative maintenance of all equipment supplied by CITY.

CONSULTANT shall be responsible for all costs associated with any repair resulting from negligence on the part of CONSULTANT. In the case of a repair resulting from the negligence of CONSULTANT, CITY shall perform the repairs and deduct the cost of the repair from the most current unpaid invoice received from CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for simple facility tasks such as moving furniture and equipment, light painting, and wall hangings.

2.5.14 CITY shall provide reasonable janitorial services for the above-referenced operations and maintenance facility, including all offices, administrative areas, bathrooms, and public areas. CONSULTANT shall ensure that all employees use care and consideration for the property to ensure a safe, professional, hygienic, and attractive working environment that complies with all federal, state and local regulations.

2.5.15 CITY will provide communications infrastructure to CONSULTANT for operation of trolley services, including dedicated phone lines for internal and external customer calls, as well 33 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-6 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
as high-speed internet access. CITY shall supply uninterruptible power supply to allow for continued operations during a power outage. CONSULTANT will be provided with desktop access to TripShot CAD/AVL/APC system as well as two-way radio system for communications with drivers and field staff.

2.5.16 All internal electronic equipment in the revenue-service trolleys will be provided by CITY, including two-way radios located on the trolley fleet and the TripShot system, which also includes digital passenger counters and automated stop annunciation, among other features. Training associated with the operation of the internal electronic equipment for selected CONSULTANT’s supervisory and driving personnel will be provided by CITY and the selected CONSULTANT’s personnel shall be expected to operate these systems.

2.5.17 CITY will ensure availability of the two-way communication system. Equipment, training, and access to the two-way radio communication system will be made available to the selected CONSULTANT, whose staff shall be capable of utilizing these methods of communication.

2.5.18 TripShot CAD/AVL/APC System: CITY-provided revenue-service trolley fleet is equipped with Global Positioning System (GPS), Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL), Digital Passenger Counter (DPC) and Automated Passenger Counter (APC) systems provided by TripShot. CITY shall train the selected CONSULTANT’s staff to use the systems to monitor driving personnel and to access the reporting functions to assist with the provision of trolley services.

2.5.19 Scheduling & Fares: CITY shall be responsible for all planning activities relative to routes, days and hours of operation, public schedules, and bus stop locations, in coordination with CONSULTANT.

2.5.20 CITY reserves the right to implement fares for any Laguna Beach Trolley or On-Demand service and will provide CONSULTANT with a 30-day notice prior to fee implementation.

2.5.21 CITY will provide the following information to the CONSULTANT at the beginning of the contract and when CITY deems necessary. CONSULTANT is responsible for making all copies of this information for their operations.
34 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-6 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
35 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-7 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Table 1 – Schedule Materials
Document Description Format Interval
Schedule Public Schedule Excel Service Change
Route Map Map of Route Alignment PDF With Alignment
Change
Route-Of-Line
Sheet
Turn-by-turn route
alignment
Excel With Alignment
Change
Stop List Listing of all stops on a
route
Excel As Updated
Destination
Sign Codes
Listing of Codes to Be
Programmed into
Destination Signs
Excel As Updated

2.6 Consultant Responsibilities

2.6.1 CONSULTANT shall perform the duties and accept the responsibilities set forth below in connection with its provision of trolley services. The omission of a duty or responsibility herein below shall not relieve CONSULTANT of its obligation to perform such duty or accept such responsibility, so long as it is usual, customary, and generally accepted within the public transportation industry as being an integral element of operating a Transit System.

2.6.2 The CONSULTANT shall provide all management, supervision, trainers, drivers, and dispatchers, and such other personnel necessary to responsibly operate the trolley services outlined herein.

2.6.3 The CONSULTANT shall employ rigorous security practices to ensure a safe computing environment that protects CITY’s network and IT assets. The CONSULTANT shall not, without CITY approval, remove customer data on portable devices such as laptop computers, zip disks, portable hard drives, or USB thumb drives. The CONSULTANT shall make it a priority to protect the confidentiality of sensitive customer data.

2.6.4 CONSULTANT shall provide the necessary management, technical, and operating services for the operation of the trolley services as specified by CITY. CONSULTANT shall assist and cooperate with CITY in meeting the objectives of providing quality transportation services. CONSULTANT shall coordinate and cooperate with CITY on matters related to operations, monitoring, reporting, and service performance measurements. Equipment and services required in the operation and management of the service shall be furnished by CONSULTANT unless specifically identified.

2.6.5 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for any damage to City-provided equipment caused by the CONSULTANT. In the case of a repair resulting from CONSULTANT negligence, CITY shall perform the repairs and deduct the cost of the repair from the most current and unpaid invoice received from CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT is responsible for operating equipment in a safe and proper manner. Documentation in the form of a repair order shall be documented for all maintenance and repairs performed.

2.6.6 Law enforcement services are provided by the Laguna Beach Police Department. The 36 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-8 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
CONSULTANT is responsible for timely and efficient communication with local law enforcement agencies regarding crimes committed in the scope of providing services in the Agreement. CONSULTANT is responsible for the first line of response for any nonsafety and policy violations committed onboard CITY-provided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANT-provided on-demand vehicles.

2.6.7 CONSULTANT shall be required to follow all applicable regulatory requirements, such as storm water runoff and hazardous material regulations and requirements at all times herein. Training will be provided by CITY on these requirements, as needed.

2.6.8 CONSULTANT shall at all times comply with applicable state and federal employment laws, including Section 1735 of the California Labor Code and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended.

2.6.9 The CONSULTANT is responsible for obtaining all permits and licenses necessary to provide the services outlined in the Agreement. In addition, the CONSULTANT is responsible for obtaining a City of Laguna Beach Business License.

2.6.10 CONSULTANT will operate trolley services and on-demand services as specified by CITY and in strict accordance with the operating schedules and routes set forth in this Agreement and shall provide such services in a safe, professional and courteous manner.

2.6.11 CITY will not be responsible for payment of any traffic ticket fines incurred by any of CONSULTANT’s employees.

2.6.12 CONSULTANT shall assign/employ an adequate number of operations personnel necessary to perform the route operations required under this contract. The employees assigned to this contract must meet the following standards outlined below. Failure to comply with these standards may result in assessment of penalties as described in this Agreement.

2.6.13.1 All Drivers must have a current, valid Class B license with Passenger Endorsement and Medical Card or a current Transit Training (VTT) or School Pupil Activity Bus Certificate (SPAB) and a Medical Card.

2.6.13.2 CONSULTANT shall produce ID Cards for each of their employees, which contain the following information
Employee Name
Employee Photo
Employee Position
Consultant Name
All CONSULTANT employees must wear the badge at all times while providing services under this agreement.

2.6.14 Drug & Alcohol Testing: The CONSULTANT agrees to establish and implement a drug and alcohol testing program that complies with 49 CFR Part 655, produce any documentation necessary to establish its compliance with Part 655, and permit any authorized representative of the United States Department of Transportation or its operating administrations, the State Oversight Agency of California, or CITY, to inspect 37 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
the facilities and records associated with the implementation of the drug and alcohol testing program as required under 49 CFR Part 655 and review the testing process. The CONSULTANT agrees further to certify annually its compliance with Part 655 before (March 15) and to submit the Management Information System (MIS) reports before (March 15). The regulations included requirements for pre-employment, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, DOT recertification or biennial physical examination, return-to-duty, and random testing of employees in safety sensitive positions.

2.6.15 CITY is to receive a copy of the submissions. To certify compliance, the CONSULTANT shall use the "Substance Abuse Certifications" in the "Annual List of Certifications and Assurances for Federal Transit Administration Grants and Cooperative Agreements," which is published annually in the Federal Register. CONSULTANT will be subject to annual CHP, and possibly FTA, compliance audit of the Drug and Alcohol program.

2.6.16 Background Check: CONSULTANT shall use appropriate employee screening and selection criteria to assure the employment of the best-qualified, available applicants, emphasizing competence, courtesy, reliability, and good customer service skills. These criteria shall include, but not be limited to, checking an applicant's driver's license records through the California Department of Motor Vehicles, pre-employment physical examinations, and drug/alcohol screening tests.

2.6.17 CONSULTANT shall make all reasonable efforts to ensure that employees having contact with the public in the course of their duties are of good moral character. Any such employee who is convicted of a felony or of a crime involving moral turpitude during the time of his/her employment shall not be permitted to continue to hold a position of employment. CONSULTANT shall conduct a “Live Scan” DOJ & FBI check to determine criminal background of employees. The CONSULTANT must complete the background checks every two years and provide CITY with copies of all records.

2.6.18 Drivers must be in good standing with the DMV with no suspensions within the last five (5) years and having no more than three (3) moving violations within the last three (3) years. Any person whose Motor Vehicle Record contains any two-point violation, or has an outstanding failure to appear or failure to pay a violation, will not be eligible to work on this project. Point counts must be included in employee files. CONSULTANT shall supply the following records to CITY for each employee before being put into service:

2.6.18.1 California Department of Motor Vehicles H6 report (10-year driving history), dated within the past 30 days

2.6.18.2 California Department of Motor Vehicles Pull Notice, dated within the past 30 days

2.6.18.3 Pre-Employment Drug test (If an existing employee of CONSULTANT, also include copy of Pre-Employment test from original hire date by CONSULTANT)

2.6.18.4 Medical Card & Driver’s License

2.6.18.5 Proof of enrollment in FTA Drug and Alcohol Program

2.6.18.6 Name & Phone number of Drug Consortium used by CONSULTANT 38 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-10 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.6.18.7 Drug Policy Receipt

2.6.18.8 Hire Date with CONSULTANT

2.6.18.9 Two-year drug test history prior to working for CONSULTANT

2.7 Driver Responsibilities

2.7.1 In addition to the safe operation of the vehicle, Drivers must also perform the following general duties:

2.7.1.1 Operate wheelchair lift and secure wheelchair passengers

2.7.1.2 Change Destination Sign information as needed

2.7.1.3 Clearly call out all bus stops upon approach when automated system is not working

2.7.1.4 Completely fill out daily log sheets

2.7.1.5 Utilize digital passenger counter system to track boardings on CITY-provided tablet

2.7.1.6 Record of Driver Duty Status, including reporting of hours of service

2.7.1.7 When requested, provide passenger assistance during boarding or alighting

2.7.1.8 Serve as City ambassador and provide directions and local information as requested.

2.8.0 Each Driver shall have at all times during operation of any bus, an accurate time piece with active second hand (or digital equivalent), set each day to conform to the Coordinated Universal Time, Pacific Standard.

2.8.1 Drivers will, when requested by CITY, hand out notices to passengers or otherwise render assistance in customer relations, promotion, marketing, and monitoring.

2.8.2 Drivers will record ridership counts by passenger, passenger type and boarding location in accordance with procedures approved by CITY.

2.8.3 Pre-Trip Inspection: Drivers must conduct a Pre-Trip Inspection and complete the PreTrip Inspection sheet prior to taking a vehicle into revenue service. The inspection must meet all federal and state requirements for commercial vehicles inspections, and any other requirements specified by CITY. Even if there are no defects, the driver must sign and date the Daily Vehicle Inspection card prior to leaving the yard. A copy of the signed card shall remain with the vehicle for the duration of the day and shall be replaced on a daily basis. Vehicles with Daily Vehicle Inspection cards showing defects must be inspected and appropriate action taken on items noted on the card. After repairs are performed, the mechanic must sign the Daily Vehicle Inspection card, and the information must be transferred to the Shop Work Order or similar document. Daily Vehicle Inspection cards showing defects must be dated at the upper right front corner and filed in chronological 39 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-11 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
order for inspection and verification purposes. Once this is completed, the Daily Vehicle Inspection card becomes a permanent record in the vehicle file for that vehicle and must be available for review/inspection at all times.

2.8.4 Driver Policies and Procedures: CONSULTANT shall ensure that drivers perform their duties in compliance with policies and procedures established by CITY. Such policies and procedures may be modified from time to time through bulletins, special notices, and verbal directives from CITY personnel. CONSULTANT should ensure that CONSULTANT's policies and procedures do not conflict with instructions provided to drivers by CITY.

2.8.5 Engine Idling: CITY vehicles shall not idle for more than five minutes maximum to comply with State regulations. Unnecessary idling causes excess fuel consumption, shortened engine life, and contributes to air pollution. Engines may be operated to supply heat or air conditioning necessary for passenger comfort and safety, in which case idling up to a maximum of 30 minutes is allowed. CONSULTANT is responsible for all fines for violating State or County engine idling regulations. There are locations along certain routes where staging and idling are not permitted. CITY will inform CONSULTANT of these zones.

2.9 Dispatcher/Field Supervisor Responsibilities:

2.9.1 CONSULTANT shall provide at least one dispatcher during all service hours, and two dispatchers when needed based on service levels. Dispatchers serve in a supervisory role and may also respond to an incident in the field as needed when a second dispatcher is present in the office. During the summer festival season (late June through Labor Day), at least one Supervisor must be in the field during all operating hours, in addition to dispatching staff. Contract employees acting as dispatchers and field supervisors assist drivers with special events, accidents, route deviations, and emergencies.

2.9.2 Pull-Out Inspection: A Dispatcher or Field Supervisor must be present whenever a scheduled vehicle pullout is made. The Dispatcher or Field Supervisor will assist the driver backing up or pulling forward in and out of the parking stalls. The on-duty Supervisor must complete and sign the daily Pullout Report.

2.9.3 Accidents: All traffic accidents and collisions involving transit vehicles, irrespective of injury or damage, shall be immediately reported by CONSULTANT to CITY’s Project Manager and CITY’s Transit Supervisor, as well as the Laguna Beach Police Department.

This includes passenger accidents, including falls to passengers who are entering, occupying or exiting the vehicle and medical emergencies. CITY’s Project Manager and CITY’s Transit Supervisor shall be provided with a report in writing by CONSULTANT detailing all accidents and incidents within 24 hours. CONSULTANT shall respond in person to any emergency or accident involving extensive property damage, passenger injuries or as requested by CITY during or after the operational hours of the system.

2.9.4 The CONSULTANT shall have an accident investigation program that identifies the roles and responsibilities of the individuals responsible for investigating accidents, including notification, response, investigation, and drug/alcohol screening, as appropriate. The accident investigation program must be designed to identify the root cause of accidents and provide a path to eliminate the root cause and prevent similar types of accidents in the future. All drivers and operating personnel must be trained in proper procedures for notifying CONSULTANT and/or CITY in the event of an emergency. 40 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-12 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.9.5 CONSULTANT will request that the Laguna Beach Police Department respond to investigate the accident. CONSULTANT will supply CITY with copies of all accident and incident reports and photos within twenty-four (24) hours of the occurrence. As part of any Traffic Accident Report, the CONSULTANT must also complete a CITY Accident Form for inclusion in the permanent vehicle file.

2.9.6 If CITY personnel are utilized for emergency response requests due to CONSULTANT’s failure to respond to emergency requests within 4 hours, CONSULTANT will be charged the actual cost of CITY personnel at a professional rate of two and one-half times actual labor rate plus overhead.

2.9.7 CONSULTANT is also responsible for preparing data for the monthly NTD Safety and Security reports that include all reportable incidents. The data shall be provided to CITY by 10th of the month.

2.9.8 Incidents: CONSULTANT is responsible for responding to passenger incidents. All incidents must be logged, and a corresponding report must be filed with CITY within 24 hours. Incidents that should be reported include, but are not limited to:

2.9.8.1 Inappropriate behavior on-board the vehicle

2.9.8.2 Disturbances, ejectment, fainting, sickness, deaths or assaults

2.9.8.3 Vandalism to the vehicle while in service

2.9.8.4 Accidents or incidents the driver witnesses

2.9.8.5 Passenger complaints of injury or property or other circumstances likely to result in the filing of claims against the CONSULTANT or CITY

2.9.8.6 Any passenger, driver, and service complaint that arises from an accident

2.9.9 On-Time Performance Checks: CONSULTANT shall conduct checks, on a random basis, and compile on-time performance data monthly. At least 10 checks per route must be completed monthly and data forwarded to CITY using in-person verification or the TripShot CAD/AVL/APC system.

2.9.10 Trolley Tracker Checks: CONSULTANT will be monitoring the Laguna Beach Trolley mobile app to ensure that it is operating according to timetables and headways as operated. CONSULTANT will report issues with the app to CITY’s Transit Supervisor immediately.

2.9.11 Operator Performance Reviews: CONSULTANT shall conduct performance reviews of each Operator on an annual basis by September 30 of each year and share reports with CITY.

2.9.12 CONSULTANT will deviate from established routes when necessary to avoid construction, detours, and vehicles or other obstructions within the public right of way. CITY is responsible for routing of any detours and will produce and post temporary out-of-service signs at stops and onboard as necessary. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of such 41 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-13 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
obstruction caused deviation(s) as soon as is practicable upon learning that the deviations are or may become necessary.

2.9.13 Dispatchers Responsibilities: CONSULTANT shall provide qualified and trained staff to schedule and assign drivers and vehicles in accordance with the service schedules and routes for each day; assist drivers while they are in service to carry out the assigned routes on-time, providing assistance as needed; monitor the performance of scheduled routes, reassigning routes and/or adjusting the number of vehicles in service as needed to ensure on-time performance in the most efficient manner; and ensure that unanticipated service demands, vehicle accidents, other events and general service delivery are handled and performed in accordance with CITY policies and procedures. Dispatchers will also act as a first line of communication with customers on behalf of CITY, and will provide assistance and directions as necessary. The CONSULTANT shall ensure that dispatch staff remain on-duty from 30 minutes prior to the time the first vehicle leaves the yard until the last vehicle returns to the yard.

2.9.14 Dispatch staff duties include but are not limited to:

2.9.14.1 Providing continuous monitoring of assigned radio frequencies during all hours that revenue vehicles are in service

2.9.14.2 Answering and responding to telephone calls from drivers and customers

2.9.14.3 Utilizing the TripShot CAD/AVL/APC system to assist with dispatching and supervisory responsibilities.

2.9.14.4 Initiating emergency protocol as required

2.9.14.5 Ensuring that all voice radio communications pertain to fixed route services and FCC rules and regulations are enforced

2.9.14.6 Collection and verification of hours-of-service reports submitted by drivers

2.9.14.7 Preparing daily supervisor’s report summarizing daily operations

2.9.15 Operating Behind Schedule: In the event that a route operates more than 10 minutes behind schedule, CONSULTANT shall take all available steps to restore on-time performance. CONSULTANT shall establish procedures, subject to CITY review and approval, to restore on-time performance. For headway-based service, CONSULTANT will work to maintain headway and take measures to avoid vehicle bunching. Should headway service be misaligned, CONSULTANT will take steps to restore scheduled headways.

2.9.16 ADA Backup Service: If any mobility impaired passenger is not able to board due to broken equipment or for any other reason, the driver must inform the passenger of the reason why they cannot be accommodated and when and how alternative transportation will be provided. The driver must immediately report the problem to dispatch by radio or by the most immediate means available, so that the problem can be immediately resolved within 30 minutes.

2.9.17 Road Calls: In the event of a vehicle failure while in service, CONSULTANT shall arrange 42 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-14 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
to replace the failed vehicle to ensure the continuation of service using available revenue service fleet, and inform CITY’s Transit Supervisor on duty. CONSULTANT shall develop a plan that results in minimal service disruption and on-time performance. The failed vehicle will be removed from the breakdown area by CITY fleet maintenance staff or contract towing company if needed.

2.10 Contract Employee Uniforms

2.10.1 Drivers and Dispatchers shall be in uniform at all times while in service or otherwise on duty. CONSULTANT shall provide Operator and Dispatcher uniforms to its employees.

CONSULTANT shall ensure each Operator or Dispatcher wears the following uniform items:

2.10.1.1 Dark Blue, Black or Beige Pants (no baggy pants)

2.10.1.2 Dark Blue, Black or Beige Shorts of appropriate length

2.10.1.3 City of Laguna Beach Short-Sleeve Hawaiian Shirt (Drivers) or Polo Shirt (Dispatchers) is to be worn by all transit operator drivers (Trolley and On-Demand) while CONSULTANT’s dispatch and office staff shall wear polo shirts. In addition, jackets and hats may be worn by all transit operator drivers and OPERATOR’s dispatch and office staff that clearly display the CONSULTANT’s logo as the primary logo on the front and embroidered with “Laguna Beach Transit” or “City of Laguna Beach” on the side of a hat or the right sleeve of polo/shirt/jacket.

CONSULTANT’s staff shall not wear official City of Laguna Beach items as they are not employees of CITY nor represent themselves as such. The CONSULTANT may procure such required clothing items from CITY’s current vendor or approved equivalent.

2.10.1.4 All transit operators (Trolley and On- Demand) shall wear closed toe and heel, non-skid shoes at all times while in service or otherwise on-duty.

2.10.2 CONSULTANT shall be responsible to ensure that Operators and Dispatchers wear uniforms, and that Operators maintain a neat, clean, and well-groomed appearance while on duty, including that uniforms are pressed and in good repair, not faded or torn.

2.11 Employee Training

2.11.1 The CONSULTANT shall provide operator training and retraining that shall meet generally accepted transit industry standards and in compliance with 13 CCR and all other applicable state regulations as it relates to transit bus vehicle laws and regulations. An outline of the training program, including periodic updates, shall be on file in the office of CITY‘s Project Manager. All Operators, dispatchers, and supervisors shall participate in the program.

2.11.2 Driver training shall include the following minimum components:

2.11.2.1 Vehicle Operation: Includes behind-the-wheel training on vehicle orientation, safe bus operation, route and schedules orientation, and on-time performance.

2.11.2.2 Safe Vehicle Maneuvering
43 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-15 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.11.2.3 Defensive Driving: Training program must include the National Safety Council’s defensive driving instruction.

2.11.2.4 Federal Drug & Alcohol Regulations: All necessary employees shall be trained about the requirements contained in the DOT Drug & Alcohol regulations

2.11.2.5 General Vehicle Handling and Safety

2.11.2.6 Passenger Assistance Techniques

2.11.2.7 Passenger Relations

2.11.2.8 ADA Requirements & Sensitivity Training: All drivers must be trained to comply with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, and any additional ADA or Federal Transit administration (FTA) training or testing that may be required by law.

2.11.2.9 Blood borne pathogen training

2.11.2.10 Sexual harassment training

2.11.2.11 Other training as specified by CITY, including customer service, de-escalation techniques, and route/event specific training.

2.11.3. Vehicle Training: All CONSULTANT employees who are licensed to operate CITYprovided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANTprovided on-demand vehicles must be trained to operate each type of vehicle in the fleet.

CONSULTANT must provide a Vehicle Operations Manual to each one of these employees for each type of vehicle in the fleet. Operators must also be trained on the ADA ramp/lift device and mobility device securement system for each vehicle type.

2.11.4 Route Training: Each CONSULTANT employee (drivers and dispatchers/supervisors) will be trained on each Route operated by the CONSULTANT for CITY. This training must include driving each Route completely in CITY-provided revenue-service trolleys and nonrevenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANT-provided on-demand vehicles, as applicable, with a Supervisor or Trainer.

2.11.5 Documentation of Training: CONSULTANT shall maintain a list of drivers who have completed the required training program for operation of bus services described in this RFP. This list shall be updated in real time and provided to CITY as additional active drivers are trained or removed from service. The list of drivers shall include, at a minimum, the following:

2.11.5.1 Name and badge number

2.11.5.2 Hire date

2.11.5.3 Date of certification

2.11.5.4 Hours of initial training
44 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-16 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.11.5.5 CDL license number and expiration

2.11.5.6 Medical certificate

2.11.6 The CONSULTANT must maintain a record of all training completed by each driver and must provide a copy of these records to CITY or other compliance agency (i.e. DMV or California Highway Patrol (CHP)). In the event Federal, State or local laws change affecting driver certification or level of training required,

2.11.7 CONSULTANT shall be responsible for adopting any and all changes to their driver training program.

CONSULTANT shall work with CITY to prepare an Operations Procedure Handbook covering the duties performed by Operators, Dispatchers, and Supervisors to be approved by CITY. This Handbook shall include, at a minimum, the following subject areas:

2.11.7.1 Fundamentals of Customer Service

2.11.7.2 Operator Rules

2.11.7.3 Accident/Incident Policies

2.11.7.4 Radio Policies and Procedures

2.11.7.5 Fog and Inclement Weather Policy

2.11.7.6 Vehicle Inspection Procedures

2.11.7.7 Dispatch Policies and Procedures

2.11.7.8 Telephone Procedures

2.11.8 Video Surveillance: CITY Trolley vehicles and on-demand vehicles are equipped with video surveillance systems. However, CONSULTANT shall install and manage a video surveillance system acceptable to CITY, and related software and upgrades shall be provided by and installed by the selected CONSULTANT at the selected CONSULTANT’s cost into CITY vehicles. All system capital and ongoing operating costs must be assumed by the CONSULTANT.

2.11.9 Progressive Discipline: CONSULTANT’s personnel policies should include a mechanism for administering required progressive corrective action and discipline to address any occurrence where staff performance does not conform with established CITY and/or CONSULTANT service standards. CITY retains the right to review and comment on the CONSULTANT’S personnel policies and the list of personnel assigned to CITY contract.

2.11.10 Removal of Contract Employees: CITY may require that any contract employee be removed from service under CITY contract for excessive complaints, rudeness, preventable accidents, or other inappropriate behavior or appearance. CITY has a zerotolerance policy with regard to misconduct or inappropriate behavior. If an allegation of this nature is received, CONSULTANT shall remove the employee from the project 45 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-17 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
immediately pending investigation and resolution of the allegation to CITY’s satisfaction.

During this period, CITY shall evaluate whether the employee is suitable for the project.

2.11.11 CITY shall notify the CONSULTANT, in writing, of any employee determined to be unsuitable. Within 24 hours of receipt of such notice, CONSULTANT shall, at its sole discretion, permanently remove the employee from the project or present to CITY a plan for correcting the employee’s performance deficiencies. If CITY rejects the plan or the employee's performance deficiencies are not corrected to CITY’s satisfaction, the CONSULTANT shall be instructed to immediately remove the employee from the project.

2.11.12 Employee Turnover: CITY recognizes the expense and negative effect of employee turnover. Therefore, the CONSULTANT must demonstrate they have an acceptable recruitment and hiring program that minimizes turnover and retains a high-quality work force. CONSULTANT must offer a reasonable wage and compensation package, coupled with a supportive work environment.

2.11.13 Restroom Facilities: CONSULTANT is responsible for determining restroom locations for drivers to use during layover and recovery time. CONSULTANT must provide a list of these locations to CITY for every layover/recovery location. Currently recovery and layover and breaks are taken at the Transit Depot location, and recovery layover at the Ritz Carlton in Dana Point.

2.11.14 Communication System: CONSULTANT shall operate CITY provided two-way radio system in compliance with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, and licensing conditions.

2.11.15 The radio communications equipment for the service shall be used solely for providing communications related to services under the Agreement. Radio transmissions shall be limited to the frequency assigned for such transmissions.

2.11.16 Use of Personal Electronic Devices: CONSULTANT shall not allow any contract employee to use any personal electronic or entertainment device while in service, including smart phones. CITY has a zero-tolerance policy for the use of a cell phone while operating a CITY-provided revenue-service trolleys and non-revenue sedans as well as the CONSULTANT-provided on-demand vehicles, with the exception of verified emergency situations. The CONSULTANT must also adopt a zero-tolerance policy and shall describe their procedure for training employees regarding this policy.

2.11.17 Training Vehicles: CITY will provide four trolleys to CONSULTANT for driver training prior to the beginning of the Agreement term. The vehicles will be provided within 30 days prior to the start of revenue service.

2.11.18 Other Requirements: All contract employees including drivers and dispatchers must be able to speak, understand, read, and write English.

2.11.19 Drivers and dispatchers are required to treat all customers with respect and courtesy, and always ensure safety is a top priority.

2.11.20 Drivers must sign acknowledgement forms showing proof of successful training to become familiar with respective routes.
46 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-18 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.11.21 Purchasing or consuming illegal substances or alcoholic beverages while on duty or in uniform is not allowed. The policies for addressing such incidents should be included in the CONSULTANT’S Drug and Alcohol Policies. CONSULTANT’S Drug and Alcohol Policies must also comply with FTA Drug and Alcohol Regulations.

2.11.22 CITY of Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 40.050 – Smoking is prohibited in CITY facilities and on CITY property. Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed areas, including buildings, and vehicles, owned, leased, or operated by CITY of Laguna Beach as well as on all outdoor property owned, leased or operated by CITY of Laguna Beach.

2.11.23 Employees may not have weapons in their possession or on CITY property or vehicles.

2.11.24 CITY has a zero-tolerance policy for inappropriate and unsafe behavior. The CONSULTANT’s personnel policies must clearly address how inappropriate and unsafe situations shall be handled. The CONSULTANT must also adopt a zero-tolerance policy and shall describe their procedure for training employees in this policy.

2.12 Administration Requirements:

2.12.1 CONSULTANT shall provide operations management at a level and capability sufficient to oversee its functions and employees. At all times, the Project Manager, Manager/Supervisor or other employee(s) designated and identified to CITY to act for the Project Manager, shall be available either by phone or in person to make decisions regarding day-to-day operations, including emergency situations, or to provide coordination as necessary, and shall be authorized to act on behalf of CONSULTANT regarding all matters pertaining to the Agreement.

2.12.2 Key Personnel: Key Personnel are defined as the Manager, Assistant Manager, Administrative Assistant, and Dispatchers. Designated Key Personnel shall not be replaced without prior written consent by CITY. In the event that a Key Personnel employee provides notice of termination, or is unable to perform the services as required under this Agreement, then CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing within two working days, and immediately seek a qualified replacement employee. Once a final candidate is identified, CONSULTANT shall provide qualifications information to CITY for review. CITY reserves the right to approve or deny any Key Personnel replacement recommended by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall provide competent coverage for any Key Personnel vacancies at all times. One key employee shall be on-site during all hours of operation.

2.12.3 CONSULTANT shall designate and provide the services of an experienced Project Manager, subject to the approval of CITY, who shall provide overall management of daily operations under the terms of the Agreement. The Project Manager shall work cooperatively with CITY’s Project Manager and CITY’s Transit Supervisor on matters relating to service quality, providing operational and other data as described in the Agreement, responding to comments from CITY, passengers and the public, and responding to specific requests for other assistance as the need arises.

2.12.4 The CONSULTANT shall designate an Operations Manager or Supervisor that will direct trolley operations.

2.12.5 CONSULTANT shall schedule the hours for management so that at least one Key Personnel member is on-duty during all hours of revenue operation. 47 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.12.6 CONSULTANT shall continually monitor operations, facilities and equipment, and shall, from time-to-time, and as warranted, advise CITY and make recommendations to it, upon observed deficiencies and needed improvements. CITY shall retain all authority, however, to make determinations to take action on such recommendations.

2.12.7 Safety Program: CONSULTANT shall assume full responsibility for assuring that the safety of passengers, operations personnel and all vehicles and equipment are maintained at the highest possible level throughout the term of the Agreement. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY of any equipment malfunction immediately so CITY can repair. CONSULTANT shall comply with all applicable California Highway Patrol and OSHA requirements and shall furnish CITY upon request with copies and CHP safety compliance reports, including pull notices.

2.12.8 CONSULTANT shall develop, implement and maintain, in full compliance with California Law, a formal safety and accident prevention program including periodic safety meetings, participation in safety organizations, safety incentives offered by CONSULTANT to Operators and other employees, and participation in risk management activities under the auspices of CONSULTANT’s insurance carrier or other organization. CONSULTANT shall provide a copy of said Safety Program and subsequent program updates to CITY or its representative.

2.12.9 CONSULTANT shall participate in the State of California Department of Motor Vehicles “Employer Pull Notice” program for monitoring of employee driver’s license activity and provide City with duplicate copies of all reports. Active employees of CONSULTANT shall also be placed in CITY’s Employer Pull Notice program.

2.12.10 CONSULTANT will require all Operators, dispatchers, and supervisors to participate in the safety program.

2.13 Ride Check

2.13.1 CONSULTANT must hire the services of a transportation-consulting firm at CONSULTANT’s cost to conduct an annual 100% Ride check. Every trip on each Route must be surveyed. The survey must include boarding, alighting, and arrival times at time points, as well as miles traveled. The Bus Operator cannot complete these surveys. The survey must be completed in July. The report must be completed within 30 days of the ride check and include the following information for each Line:

2.13.2 Actual Driving Distance between bus stops

2.13.3 Stop-by-stop boarding’s and alighting’s for all runs and trips

2.13.4 Running Time Analysis

2.13.5 Recommended Changes to Schedules

2.14 Data Collection / Reporting
In addition to any other reports required by law, the CONSULTANT is also responsible for providing the following reports at the interval as outlined. Reports will be provided 48 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-20 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
to CITY in email format unless requested otherwise.

2.14.1 Daily

2.14.1.1 Daily Supervisor’s report with summary of daily operations and any issues encountered and shall include the following:

Vehicle Assignment List: Shows which vehicles are assigned to each route/run and reason deviations from normal assignment list.

Down Vehicle List: Shows which vehicles are not available for service, reason, and anticipated date for return to service.

Service Interruption Summary: Brief description of any service interruptions with reason and steps taken to fix.

Accident, incident and injury reports (as needed).

2.14.2 Monthly

2.14.2.1 Operational Data: CONSULTANT shall collect, record, and report all operational data required by CITY in a format approved by CITY, and separated by route. Such data shall include, but not be limited to, Full Time Equivalents, total passenger count, passenger count data by type, vehicle hours, vehicle miles, revenue vehicle hours, revenue vehicle miles, passengers per hour, mobility device boarding, boardings by fare type, passenger loads and on-time performance.

2.14.2.2 Monthly Invoice: CITY provided template, submitted no later than 10th day of the month following service.

2.14.2.3 NTD Passenger Mile Samples: Completed sample sheets using random samples provided by CITY.

2.14.2.4 All data required under NTD, State Controller and Orange County Transportation Authority program guidelines, especially having operational data categorized by Weekday, Saturday, and Sunday, separated by route.

2.14.2.5 On-Time Performance Checks

2.14.2.6 Monthly NTD safety and operations reports

2.14.2.7 Employee Roster - List of positions and current assigned employees. If a position is open, a description of steps being taken to fill the position.

2.14.3 Annually

2.14.3.1 NTD Report - Additional data as needed for CITY to complete the NTD report.

2.14.3.2 CHP BIT Inspection Report

2.14.3.3 CONSULTANT Reports for CITY Review:
49 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.14.3.3.1 Dispatch Log- Detailed daily dispatch log of any service/staffing issues

2.14.3.3.2 Road Supervisor Logs- Daily summaries of work completed by each road supervisor.

2.15 Customer Service

2.15.1 Customer service is one of CITY’s core values, and all CITY employees and CONSULTANTs are expected to provide “concierge-style” customer service to residents and visitors. In support of this, CONSULTANT shall participate in on-going customer relations efforts and training as coordinated by CITY. The CONSULTANT shall be required to attend meetings as requested by CITY to address customers, advocacy groups, CITY Council and various representatives in forums where transportation issues are discussed.

2.15.2 CITY will investigate and resolve all customer correspondence as they are received. The CONSULTANT will coordinate with the Transit Supervisor to ensure that all customer comments and correspondence are submitted to the Transit Supervisor within 24 hours of receipt.

2.15.3 CONSULTANT shall conduct bi-annual passenger feedback surveys in coordination with CITY.

2.15.4 Lost & Found: The CONSULTANT is responsible for storing lost and found items in a secured location for 30 calendar days. The CONSULTANT will keep a log that has information about who found the item, where it was found, and the date and time it was found. After 30 calendar days, CITY will dispose of any unclaimed items. 50 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-21 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
51 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-22 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.16 Performance Standards

2.16.1 The CONSULTANT will strive at all times to provide service in a manner which will ensure responsive service to trolley customers, while at the same time maximizing service reliability and safety. In order to identify key areas of concern to CITY, various performance standards are described below for which penalties may be assessed when service falls below the standards, as detailed in Table 3 below.

2.16.2 Any breach of this Agreement by CONSULTANT could result in substantial damages and injury to the public and CITY in amounts which are difficult to ascertain with specificity at this time. Therefore, certain dollar amounts are established here for the identified standards. Penalties will be waived if due to a manufacturer defect existing in a vehicle or series of vehicles.

2.16.3 After initiation of service, CITY will periodically review the standards established for the route services to ensure that the standards remain appropriate and fair. In consultation with CONSULTANT, CITY may at its sole discretion adjust standards and penalties to ensure and encourage increased efficiency and improved performance of services. The Penalties described below may be instituted by CITY no sooner than 60 days after the initiation of the service.

Table 3 – Penalties and Liquidated Damages
Number Category Standard Penalty Comment

1. Missed or
Incomplete
Shift
OPERATOR shall staff all
requested drivers and
other positions as
identified in the
agreement.
$250 per missed or
incomplete trolley or
On-Demand shift.

Such damages will apply to
all unfilled shifts that result
in loss of service greater
than 30 minutes. It will also
be applied to any
route/shift that is up to 30
minutes late.

2. Reporting Submit all required reports
to CITY including
performance reports by
the 10th day of the new
calendar month.

Invoices and backup
materials shall be
$250 for each report
submission that is late or
contains incorrect or
missing information.

City to provide examples of
reports required.

Each monthly invoice that
is incorrect will be charged
$250.
52 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-23 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Table 3 – Penalties and Liquidated Damages
submitted and free of
errors.

3. Accident
Reports
Immediate verbal
notification to Transit
Supervisor; Initial written
report to CITY within 48
hours.
$500 per accident not
timely reported.

City to provide examples of
reports that will be
required.

4. Preventable
U.S.

Department of
Transportation
(DOT)
Recordable
Accidents
Zero preventable
accidents.
$5,000 per preventable
accident.

Definition of accident:

FMCSR 4.4. (390.5T)
Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Regulations define
a reportable “crash” and
“accident” as an
occurrence involving a
commercial motor vehicle
in interstate or intrastate
commerce in which:
• A vehicle was
towed from the
scene
• A fatality occurred;
or
• A person was
injured and
required immediate
medical treatment
away from the
crash scene.

5. Preventable
Damage
Preventable damage to
City property (vehicles).

Zero preventable damage.
$1,000 per preventable
damage
Any incident where an
OPERATOR employee
causes preventable
damage to CITY vehicles
not due to a mechanical
issue. A penalty will be
applied to any incidents
over three in a quarter.

6. Operating
Procedure
Violation
Adhere to operating
procedures established by
OPERATOR and CITY
$500 per occurrence
when operating policy
or procedure is
violated.

Compliance will be
monitored by CITY staff
and through investigation
of customer complaints.
53 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Table 3 – Penalties and Liquidated Damages

7. Failure to
Comply with
Disability Laws
No incidents of verified
non-compliance with
state/federal disability
$5,000 per occurrence
54 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-24 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

2.17 Records

2.17.1 CONSULTANT shall keep accurate records concerning all of his/her employees or agents.

CONSULTANT shall provide this information in an organizational chart as changes in staffing occur.

2.17.2 CONSULTANT shall complete a monthly report indicating work performed and submit this completed report to the Transit and Community Services Department, Transit Supervisor.

This report should also contain a description, including staff hours, equipment, and materials breakdowns and costs used to accomplish any additional work which CONSULTANT deems to be beyond the scope of the contract and which has been previously approved by CITY. Payment for any extra work will not be authorized unless the additional work and costs thereof are first approved in writing by CITY.

2.17.3 The CONSULTANT shall permit CITY to inspect and audit its books and records regarding City-provided services during regular business hours.

2.17.4 CONSULTANT shall maintain program documentation and records for a period of no less than five years. Program documents and records, including but limited to payroll, trip sheets, invoices and other program-related expenses, shall be available for review by CITY staff, OCTA administrators, auditors, and authorized agents upon request.

CONSULTANT must follow established accounting requirements and applicable laws regarding the use of public funds. Failure to submit to an audit in a timely manner may result in withholding or loss of future funding. Failure to comply with contract terms will require remediation, which may include repayment, reduction in overall allocation, and/or Table 3 – Penalties and Liquidated Damages
laws

8. California
Highway Patrol
(CHP)
Inspection
Meet all CHP annual
terminal inspection
requirements;
OPERATOR shall be
responsible for the
preparation of personnel
files, driver records, and
logbook that may be
requested during the
inspection.
$25,000 for each
occurrence of a failed
inspection (unsatisfactory
rating)
Only DOT/CHP issues
related to OPERATOR
performance.
55 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-25 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
other sanctions to be determined by CITY and OCTA Board of Directors. Audits shall be conducted by CITY staff, the OCTA Internal Audit Department, or other authorized agent, as determined by OCTA and CITY.
56 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
Exhibit “A”-25 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
57 of 170
Exhibit “A-I-1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
58 of 170
Exhibit “A-I-1” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
59 of 170
Exhibit “B”-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "B"

SCHEDULE OF SERVICES
Trolley Services
The services below are expected to be provided under this contract:

Service Line Summer
Days/Hours
Non-Summer Hours Round trip
Mileage
Short Coastal Service
Originates at Beach Street and
travels to 7th Avenue/Mission
Hospital. This service operates
all year on approximately 20-
mintue headway during the
summer season and 30-minute
headway during the off-season.

MondaySunday
9:00 a.m. to
11:30 p.m.

Monday-Thursday
7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Friday
7:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Saturday
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Sunday
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

11.6 miles
Long Coastal Service
Originates at the Transit Depot
and travels south on Coast
Highway to the Ritz Carlton. This
service operates all year on an
approximately 40-minute
headway during the summer
season and 45-minute headway
during the off-season
MondaySunday
9:00 a.m. to
11:30 p.m.

Saturday
9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Sunday
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

13.8 miles
Canyon Service
Originates at the Transit Depot
and travels northbound on
Laguna Canyon Road to Laguna
College of Art Design (LCAD)
and then southerly to the
Sawdust Festival and Festival of
the Arts. This service operates
on a 20-minute headway during
the summer season only.

Monday-Sunday
8:30 a.m. to
11:30 p.m.

Saturday
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Sunday
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

11.6 miles
Summer Breeze Service
Originates at the peripheral
parking lot in the City of Irvine
(Concordia University) and
travels to the Transit Depot. This
service operates on a 30-minute
headway schedule during the
Thursday
10:00 a.m.-8:00
p.m.

Friday-Sunday
10:00 a.m. to
11:30 p.m.

None 16 miles
60 of 170
Exhibit “B”-2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
summer season only. Does not
operate during off-season.

Winter Express Trolley
Originates at the peripheral
parking lot in the City of Irvine
(Concordia University) and
travels to the Transit Depot. This
service operates on a 30-minute
headway schedule during the
summer season only. Does not
operate during off-season.

Friday-Sunday
10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m.
(five weekends
of Sawdust
Fantasy
Festival, end of
June through
Labor Day)
None 16 miles
Thurston Middle School
Originates from Thurston Middle
School down Park Avenue to the
Laguna Beach Bus Depot in
downtown
Monday-Friday
3:20 p.m.

School Year Hours
2 miles
Weekday Coastal Fixed Route
Service
Travels southbound on Coast
Highway to Ritz Carlton and
northbound on Coast Highway to
Cliff Drive. This service operates
during non-summer months only
(Labor Day – Third Week in
June) on a fixed operating
schedule with approximately
hourly headways.

Monday-Friday
7:30 a.m. to
6:00 p.m.

None 8.5 miles
On-Demand Services
Residents request a ride when they want using a mobile app or via phone, select their preferred pick up and drop off location from more than 100 stops in North Laguna, South Laguna, Top of the World, Bluebird Canyon, Arch Beach Heights, Laguna Canyon Road and downtown. The service will be provided by ten minivans with eight in operation at any time and two in reserve onsite.

Summer Laguna Local On-Demand Hours (As set by CITY annually) Monday – Sunday 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Non-Summer Laguna Local On-Demand Hours
Monday – Thursday 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.

Friday – 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
61 of 170
Exhibit “B”-3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Saturday- 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.

Sunday - 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Operating Days/Hours
No service will be provided on the following holidays. CITY will provide a holiday schedule every November for the following year.

New Year’s Day (January 1)
Thanksgiving Day (Fourth Thursday in November)
Christmas Day (December 25)
Typically there are two public schedule changes per year, in late June and early September.

However, additional service adjustments are possible throughout the year. All assignments should include applicable meal and rest breaks in accordance with state and federal regulations.

Assignments should include 15 minutes of deadhead time at the beginning and end of each shift.

CITY anticipates that the CONSULTANT will offer improved efficiencies in service delivery and adjust the driver schedule assignments to maximize efficiency. CITY would like to see improved efficiencies in service delivery that will result in a reduction of total service hours and revenue service hours from driver schedule assignments. CITY anticipates that driver assignments will comply with Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 9-2001 (Wage Order 9).

Within the vehicle service hours authorized by this Contract, CITY shall specify service parameters to be used by CONSULTANT as the basis for route scheduling and the development of driver shifts. CITY may revise and refine the service parameters based on actual service demand to maximize service efficiencies within the parameters specified by CITY policies. 62 of 170
Exhibit “B”-3 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
63 of 170
Exhibit “C”-1 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
EXHIBIT "C"

COMPENSATION
Trolley Services
Annual Cost
Projected
Revenue
Vehicle
Hours
Cost per
Revenue
Vehicle
Hour
Fixed
Costs Total Cost
Years 1-3 85,605 $44.07 $93,707 $7,146,113
Year 4 27,531 $46.27 $107,264 $2,561,121
Year 5 27,531 $48.59 $110,147 $2,659,412
Total Contract
Term
140,667 $46.31 $311,117 $12,366,646
On-Demand
Services
Annual Cost
Projected
Revenue
Vehicle
Hours
Cost per
Revenue
Vehicle
Hour
Fixed
Costs Total Cost
Years 1-3 55,635 $40.71 $51,297 $4,111,594
Year 4 20,351 $41.93 $43,098 $1,370,485
Year 5 20,351 $43.19 $31,259 $1,254,065
Total Contract
Term
96,337 $41.94 $125,653 $6,736,144
CITY will provide at least 30 days’ notice to CONSULTANT to plan for changes that could require significant staffing changes or major adjustments to work shifts. As little as 24 hours’ notice may be provided to CONSULTANT to respond to minor adjustments in service parameters.

The CONSULTANT shall not supply vehicle service hours when they are not approved by CITY’s designated project manager; such hours will not be paid for by CITY. Material changes will be formalized in writing as an amendment to the Agreement. If the scheduled hours are not filled, CITY may choose to procure drivers from another source and charge back the costs incurred to the CONSULTANT. Reliefs are the responsibility of the CONSULTANT and shall not disrupt the continuity of service. CITY reserves the right to add, delete or change vehicle miles, revenue 64 of 170
55852.00003\42823523.1
(BB&K 2017) Exhibit “D”-2
vehicle hours, timetables, and street routing as may be necessary. All changes to revenue vehicle hours must be approved and confirmed in writing by CITY prior to implementation.

Special Service: In addition to the regular trolley services outlined in Section 2.3.1 in the Scope of Work, the CONSULTANT may from time to time, upon receiving specific written authorization by CITY, provide special trolley service, including private charter service, using the revenue vehicles. CONSULTANT shall be entitled to compensation for such services at the normal rate per service hour specified in the Agreement. Gratuity cannot be accepted when providing any trolley or special services.

Emergency Service: In the event of an emergency or natural disaster, CONSULTANT shall make available, to the maximum extent possible, personnel to assist CITY in responding to such incidents. To the extent CITY required CONSULTANT to provide such emergency services and facilities; CONSULTANT may be relieved of the obligation to fulfill the duties and responsibilities to operate the services outlined in Section 2.1. Further, CONSULTANT shall be entitled to be paid reasonable compensation at existing rates for providing such emergency services, provided that the amount of such compensation and time of its payment shall be mutually agreed upon by CONSULTANT and CITY following the conclusion of the emergency or disaster, or at such other time as they may mutually agree.

Extra Work/Equipment
No new work of any kind shall be considered extra unless a separate estimate is given for said work and the estimate is approved in writing by CITY before the work commences. The CONSULTANT will be required to provide before and after photographs of safety items or emergency repairs which were made without prior City approval. Documentation of contract compliance may be required on some occasions.

Only those extra work items authorized via a proposal from the CONSULTANT, signed by CITY Representative, and issued a purchase order shall be paid.

During the term of the Agreement, there may be certain items or services that the CONSULTANT must obtain which are related to providing trolley service but not explicitly outlined in this Scope of Work. CONSULTANT must obtain at least three quotes for projects over $10,000. 65 of 170
66 of 170
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: May 12 Agenda Item #18: Please Preserve Laguna Local Weekend Canyon Service From: McKay, Ann Marie CC
Sent: Friday, May 8, 2026 8:07 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Braun, Alexis CS <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Subject: May 12 Agenda Item #18: Please Preserve Laguna Local Weekend Canyon Service Dear City Council (via bcc),
I am writing regarding the proposed transit service reductions scheduled for your consideration on Tuesday, and specifically to urge you to preserve the Laguna Local Saturday and Sunday on-demand service for the Canyon route.

I understand the fiscal pressures that drive these recommendations, and I recognize that some adjustments may be necessary. However, eliminating weekend Canyon service would fall hardest on the residents who rely on it most.

For those of us who live out in the canyon, the weekday service is already too limited to be useful for commuting to work. The weekend routes are not a luxury — they are the practical window when canyon families can actually use the system. Saturdays and Sundays are when residents can take a car-free trip to the beach, run errands in town, or support local businesses by shopping and dining downtown.

Eliminating that service doesn't just reduce a convenience; it cuts off a meaningful connection to the rest of the city for households that depend on it, removing a core benefit for an entire segment of the community.

Laguna Beach rightly takes pride in its commitment to sustainability and to the quality of life of all its residents — not just those closest to the coast. Maintaining weekend Canyon service is consistent with both of those values.

I respectfully ask that the Council preserve Saturday and Sunday on-demand service for the Canyon route, even if other schedule adjustments are necessary elsewhere in the system.

Thank you for your consideration and for your continued service to our community.

Respectfully,
67 of 170
I live in Laguna Beach. I am a senior and I use Laguna Local 2-3 times a week. I already pay a lot in taxes. I don’t want to be paying twice. Thank you, Toni Lanning
68 of 170
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Item 18 charging residence for Laguna Local
From: Mike Arredondo
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 4:13 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 18 charging residence for Laguna Local
Hello Ann Marie
Please submit my comments to the council regarding this issue. Most of us residence already pay the majority of the city’s income via property taxes The Laguan Local program has benefited seniors who either don’t drive or who are on fixed SSA income. Another suggestion give residence free on demand to locations like downtown, the library , Susie Q, Ralphs, CVS , LBHS, LCAD, the banks on Ocean Ave, Vons-Boat Canyon, and the medical center in South Laguna. These key locations would serve most residence.

I would rather see a decrease in non-season trolley service since the trolley stopped coming up Nyes into Arch Beach Heights and the Laguan Local service replaced the trolly.

If the city is trying to cover costs, then why not charge tourists a nominal fee of $1.00 per person to ride the trolley during the high use months between June and August.

Thank you,
Mike Arredondo
824 Acapuclo St. LB 92651
[email protected]
949-929-8577
69 of 170
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Our Trolley System
-----Original Message-----
From: -Carol -Roman
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 2:18 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Our Trolley System
Thank you for taking the Ɵme to read this. I work on Tuesday evenings. Otherwise I would aƩend the Council meeƟngs and voice my opinions in person.

I would like to briefly address some concerns.

I love our Trolley System. Unfortunately, the summers have become so congested that I rarely am able to go into town in the summer. I've lived in Laguna Beach for 15 years. Between the traffic and the inconsiderate tourists, it has become impossible. The residents, myself included, moved to Laguna Beach because of its beauty, it's coast, it's charm. All of that is fading quickly, and I believe that our City Council has lost sight of it's purpose.

Why is there graffiƟ on Main Beach when we have spent thousands of dollars to beauƟfy the area? Where are the cameras, where are the undercover cops that can protect our city during Holidays? If the City wants to remove damaged trees, don't tell us they are damaged AFTER THE FACT. We already have a President that is a King. I hope City Council is not following in those footsteps.

Carol Roman
Laguna Beach Resident
Please forward this communicaƟon to City Council. Thank you. 70 of 170
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agenda Item 18: Oppose - Please forward and place in public comment From: Trish Sweeney
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:28 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 18: Oppose - Please forward and place in public comment Hi, Ann Marie.

Would you please forward this email to all council members and place it in to public comment for item 18 on tomorrow’s city council agenda?
Thank you.

Trish Sweeney
Laguna Beach City Council:

Our family does NOT support the proposed fee for each and every trip on Laguna Local. The StaƯ report seems to be missing critical data. Specifically:
 A good number of fares appear to be children and teens who use the service to get around yet this data isn’t presented.
 Another group are seniors on fixed incomes going to local stores to shop for groceries, pick up prescriptions, go to the doctor, etc. Again, no data is provided but we know several neighbors in just our area who depend on this service.
 There are 130 establishments to get a drink in Laguna Beach. What percentage of fares evening and weekend fares to and from restaurants and bars? We know that there are people in the community who’d rather drink and have someone else drive. I’d rather have these folks use Laguna Local and keep them oƯ our streets--not just on the weekends--but any time. We're already #1 in DUI per capita in Orange County, according to police department data.

Proposing to charge residents up to $5 per fare for on-demand transit but keep the tourist trolley free is frankly galling.

Property owners already cover the majority of the City's $162 million dollar budget via their property taxes.

The community uses Laguna Local, as evidenced by its popularity. Residents are already dealing with the fallout from overtourism. Daily, we battle bumper-to-bumper tourist traƯic, trash on beaches, graƯiti in our parks, and much more just to live here. Our streets are overwhelmed, especially in the summer. Parking is already at a premium. Why are it making it harder to leave cars in driveways? We would also like to know what percentage of the Laguna Local requests for service originate from the Laguna Canyon/El Toro Road area, for example? What are the costs associated with supporting that area 71 of 170
2 compared to others? Could on-demand pricing be employed for areas where there are comparatively few calls for service?
If most of the trips to and from are coming from particular neighborhoods, that’s a good indication that the system is working: it’s taking cars oƯ downtown streets and out of parking lots, providing a high value, resident-centric service.

This critical information doesn’t appear in the report. More data is needed before deciding to charge kids, seniors and taxpaying property owners for one of the few perks residents currently enjoy.

We understand and support reduction of the oƯ-season trolley.

We also agree that the trolley system shouldn't be used to bring still more day trippers from beyond city limits other than the OCTA Summer Breeze grant program from Irvine's Spectrum Terrace through the Canyon.

But we feel that once you start charging for this, it will never again be free for the kids who use it to get around town, for seniors, for anyone. Please reconsider this part of the proposal.

Trish and Mike Sweeney
72 of 170

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

May 12, 2026

NON APPEAL
19 SUBJECT: 675 BUENA VISTA WAY AND 620 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE: LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2023-1747 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-0096

TO MODIFY THE LOCATION OF A COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN TWO LOTS IN THE R-1 ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:

1. Conduct a Public Hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and evidence related to the consideration of Lot Line Adjustment 2023-1747, Coastal Development Permit 2025-0096, and CEQA exemption under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(B)(3); and

2. Adopt the Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2023-1747 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-0096 TO MODIFY THE LOCATION OF A COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN TWO LOTS AT 675 BUENA VISTA WAY AND 620

TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15061(B)(3)”, approving Lot Line Adjustment 2023-1747 and Coastal Development Permit 2025- 0096 to modify the location of a common property line between 675 Buena Vista Way and 620 Temple Hills Drive, and finding the project exempt from finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Karen Huber (“Applicant”), property owner of 675 Buena Vista Way and 620 Temple Hills Drive (the “Property”), applied for Lot Line Adjustment (“LLA”) 2023-1747 and Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) 2025-0096 to reconfigure two adjoining lots located at 675 Buena Vista Way and 620 Temple Hills Drive (Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, respectively) by modifying the location of a common lot line to allocate approximately 1,181 square feet (0.0271 acres) of land to 675 Buena Vista from 620 Temple Hills Drive in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone (the “Project”). Refer to Figures 1 and 2, below, for the existing and proposed lot lines.
1 of 33
LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT 2023-1747 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 2025-0096 AT 675 BUENA VISTA WAY AND 620 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE
May 12, 2026