1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Appeal fees
From: Susan Skinner
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2026 5:49 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Appeal fees
Dear Laguna Beach City Council:
I would like to ask you to maintain the cost of appeals within the city to a reasonable level. Even the City of Newport Beach, whose current City Council is pretty notorious for suppressing resident dissent in any possible way, has a maximum appeal cost of 2116.00.
Democracy works best when citizens are reasonably able to petition their elected leaders and those elected leaders support transparency. Increasing the appeals fee to 6920.00 means that even if there is a real issue present, most people will not be able to afford to appeal a decision. Government does not need to and should not place the full financial burden of these decisions on residents, which is apparently the logic behind making this change.
I agree with a fee that is high enough to stop frivolous appeals (most of us would have a lot of fun with Newport’s 2116.00 fee) but strongly object to the proposed fee increase that is being considered.
Thank you,
Susan Skinner
31561 Table Rock Dr., #419
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Design Review Board Appeals Fee
From: Susan Jung
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 10:53 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: Design Review Board Appeals FeeDear All,
I write to comment on the proposal of increase in fee for appeals to DRB decisions.
I am concerned that City Council members are given the decision making power to alter fees and appeals. From what I see, there needs to be clear guidelines and rulings on DRB decisions and appeals process. Individual City Council members making exceptions to rulings and established fees adds more uncertainty and the possibility of favoritism to this process.
I understand the tiered system seems sensible on how much work (money) is needed to process appeals but residents should be given a chance to appeal an egregious decision without the barrier of high fees. Even if there is a possibility of a refund of fees, the higher fees could make it inaccessible to many.
Susan Jung
489 Diamond Street
Laguna Beach, CA
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
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Item #23-May 12th City Council Mtg
From: GAYLE WAITE
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:04 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]> Subject: Item #23-May 12th City Council Mtg
Dear City Council members,
Many of the current proposed fee increases that will impact individual residents seem unfair and unjustified. One fee increase in particular, the Appeal fee, is incredibly unreasonable especially when compared to other cities. To be raised from an already high $2500 to $4500 seems targeted to reduce the number of filings and will prevent many residents from being able to oppose a project they feel may negatively impact them.
To have resident fees raised when city council is approving high spending on discretionary projects never voted for by residents is not good governance. Examples of such projects referred to are the purchase of two parcels of land in Laguna Canyon (2307 and 2535 LCR for over $8.5million) that benefit a small, select group of people and the very high costs for the Forest Avenue Promenade never disclosed in advance and what residents still do not know will cost.
The proposed streamlining of the Design Review process also needs more vetting by community experts to prevent loss of historic and valued aspects of our town. How many more cottages and homesteads can Laguna Beach lose, do we need more green hillsides becoming solid concrete blocks? This item needs to be postponed for a long enough time to let the public be involved.
Gayle Waite
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: The Budget and Item #23 on the May 12th Agenda -----Original Message-----
From: Louise B. Thornton
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 1:12 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: The Budget and Item #23 on the May 12th Agenda Dear Council members:
A city government is supposed to represent all of its ciƟzens regardless of their economic status. I am sure I’m not the first person to tell you basically doubling the already high appeal fee rate puts an untenable burden on many Laguna ciƟzens.
And, the percepƟon you plan to do it again when the dust seƩles, doesn’t help. In either case, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should. There are a great many very talented people in this fair City… ask them what they would do.
And, the budget issue: CiƟ Manager Dave Kiff has expressed his concerns regarding the City‘s budget. All but one of you were on the Councils which allowed and approved the acƟons which caused our present deficit.
Since you are sƟll working on making the City an efficient, effecƟve operaƟon, add making it lean and efficient budget wise as well. The percepƟon is Dave’s is keeping the status quo by cuƫng around the edges and raising rates.
Show your ciƟzens you are trying and not shiŌing the budget problem onto them.
Don’t let percepƟon lead when acƟon should.
Louise B. Thornton
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
From: Laguna Beach City Clerk
Subject: Item #23
-----Original Message-----
From: Anne Caenn
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 1:25 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Laguna Beach City Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Item #23
Mayor Orgill and Councilmembers,
Although it may be easy to make a case for increasing fees to appeal Design Review Board and Planning Commission decisions, these increases will be pricing residents out of parƟcipaƟng in the City process.
One of the suggesƟons Joy Berry made recently is for staff to have a process that requires developers and neighbors come together before going to DRB so that there is more agreement about the project and less reason to have to appeal it.
That would’ve worked well in our neighborhood where a large, non-neighborhood compaƟble house has been aproved by DBR and we have now appealed it for the second Ɵme to the City Council because the requirements from the first appeal have not been followed.
This has already been menƟoned, but it used to be that town hall meeƟngs occurred before big decisions went to the city council so that interested parƟes could give input and soluƟons be created. I don’t know why we don’t do that anymore, but I wish we did.
Please work to find a compromise that accomplishes staff needs without burdening residents.
Anne
Anne Caenn
xxx Katella Street
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Agenda Item 23, Citywide Fee Schedule: Appeal Fees and Emergency Services Fees From: Catherine Jurca
Sent: Sunday, May 10, 2026 1:43 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 23, Citywide Fee Schedule: Appeal Fees and Emergency Services Fees Dear Mayor Orgill and Council Members:
Please take my comments on the new fees into consideration. 1) Appeal Fees
a) It doesn’t seem right that the City would only return the appeal fee in the case of “abuse of discretion.” Why wouldn’t the City return the appeal fee whenever the appellants prevail? It’s already very difficult to win on appeal, and a victory for appellants indicates that an error in the process or decision-making has been rectified. Why would only a victory over bad faith qualify for reimbursement? b) There should be benchmarks from other cities before we charge such a high appeal fee.
As I wrote in a previous email, a $4500 appeal fee would make us an outlier among other cities I am familiar with (Pasadena, Glendale, Newport Beach, Orinda). Pasadena and Glendale likewise have robust design review processes that involve a lot of staff time; their appeal fees are less than Laguna’s current $2,500 fee and about half of the $4,500 the City proposes to charge. It seems to me this information is relevant. c) The possibility of (free) council review is not a good reason to almost double appeal fees. There is a widespread perception that design review is broken, that the goal of the Staff Report is less to achieve good design and neighborhood compatibility than to give the DRB or Planning Commission legally defensible grounds on which to approve projects. This may make applicants happy, but it doesn’t always serve the community interest. I’m thinking of the horrible project at 1110 Glenneyre, the Chris Abel-designed building.
This project went to Council thanks to a Council review, but is it really a good idea to incentivize residents to beg Council members even more to help them avoid high appeal fees? 4) ADR appeal fees are too high.
The City proposes to turn many more things over to ADR. It is good that appeals of ADR decisions should not go directly to Council but rather to the DRB or Planning Commission. But the $2,500 appeal fee is too high.
ADR decisions are when one staff member signs off on the work product of another staff member. There is an implicit bias in this process. There is no staff report, so residents need to muddle through complicated plans and do their own full analysis of conformity with design guidelines or standards. If the City is going to charge $2500 for an ADR appeal, then it should certainly provide the public with an analysis of the project against our standards.
2) New Fees for Emergency Services and Fire Trucks
If I read the proposed fee schedule correctly, it appears that the City plans to now charge residents (and others) to send the fire department and ambulances to assist them when they need help. These services are not included in the 2021 fee schedule, so this appears to be new. 2 I would like to point out that fire agencies are extremely well resourced and employees exceedingly well paid. A few years ago, before we brought the city attorney in house, fire department employees made up 7 of the 10 highest-paid employees in Laguna (the others were the City Manager, Asst. City Manager, and Police Chief. Taxpayers already contribute to very generous salaries, benefits, and pensions. Medical calls are 85% to 90% of what these agencies do, so it’s not like this is an extra service that should require an extra fee. If the City is proposing to charge a fee because we contract EMT services out to a private company, then maybe we need to stop doing that.
To put this into perspective: residents can have three false burglar alarms (if the alarm is permitted) before they are charged a fee, despite the drain on police resources false alarms cause. But it appears that someone can fall and break a leg, and they will be on the hook for necessary emergency services. Is the idea that insurance/medicare will just cover it? That does not seem like a safe bet.
I think these fees should be reconsidered.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best wishes,
Cathy
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Comments for Item 23 Master Fee Schedule
From: whatagood puppy
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2026 3:50 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Comments for Item 23 Master Fee Schedule
Council members,
High community development appeal fees function as an exclusionary "pay-to-play" system that violates due process, rather than acting as legitimate cost recovery.
Cities do not attempt cost recovery on all activities in which they are involved. What is considered different about Community Development fees? Do appeal fees fall under that rubric? Community development fees associated with a project are generally charged to the developer, who is the principal beneficiary of the project. Community development appeal fees differ significantly because they facilitate civic participation. Appeal fees are designed to ensure procedural fairness. Civic participation and procedural fairness should not come at a cost, especially not such a high cost that a significant part of the City would be disenfranchised.
Fundamental Right to Due Process: Unlike building permits or impact fees (which are transactional), appealing a decision is a legal right
to challenge governmental action. High fees create a "pay-to-play" system that denies due process to residents with lower incomes, violating the spirit of equitable administrative procedures.
Public Benefit: Fostering Better Planning, Quality Control and Accountability:
Appeals allow residents to highlight overlooked environmental impacts, zoning errors, or neighborhood compatibility issues. This process
ensures that developments adhere to community plans, ultimately benefiting the municipality by preventing costly, ill-conceived projects.
The consultants’ analysis of staff time involved says that 31.5 hours are required to review an appeal. If, in fact,
so much new material and new analysis is required
for the appeal to Council, that suggests that that appeals lead to more complete data and better analysis,
and thus serve a valuable purpose for the entire community - a robust argument AGAINST charging appeal fees.
Deterrence of "Bad" Development:
Low appeal fees encourage public oversight, which serves as a safeguard against projects that could impose long-term costs on the City.
Mitigation of Existing Deficiencies:
Appeals often address how a new project exacerbates existing issues. Therefore, the City has an obligation to keep the avenue for challenging
these projects affordable.
Equitable Access Argument: Preventing Regulatory Exclusion/Balancing Power Dynamics:
A developer filing an appeal has vastly more financial resources than a neighborhood group or an individual resident. High appeal fees
2 act as a "regulatory barrier" that empowers well-funded applicants while silencing the community.
Encouraging Community Planning Groups:
In some areas, to ensure the community has a voice, exemptions or reduced rates are offered to recognized community groups, emphasizing
that participation should be affordable.
High fees disproportionately burden smaller projects and residents, sometimes making them unable to appeal legitimate concerns about their own neighborhood.
Nuisance Appeals
If part of the motivation for a fee increase is that the City would like to discourage nuisance appeals, let's revisit how we could improve
the quality of appeals WITHOUT creating a financial barrier. Perhaps appellants could be required to go through an educational process, for example, watch an online video helping them do a better job of choosing arguments that truly relate to the project. Maybe we could have an Appeals Ombudsman who could work with the public to make sure that submitted appeals are relevant and well expressed and do not simply repeat arguments rebutted at the initial hearing(s).
If the council DOES decide to set an economic barrier to public participation, then the formula that has been used to arrive at the fee seems flawed. See page 113 of the October 2021 Cost of Services Study for the City of Laguna Beach
How does a single appeal eat up 18.5 hours, almost half the work week, of a planner's time? Surely in the staff report to the original decision making body almost all of the possible facts and analysis will already have been laid out, and the appeal will rely largely on that work that has already been completed. Even if you accept the consultants’ position that that many hours of staff time, including upper echelon staff, are required for each
appeal, even at their highest salary listed on the city's website (https://www.lagunabeachcity.net/home/showpublisheddocument/21100/638730490966470000) the total staff cost for an appeal doesn't come anywhere near to what the consultant has suggested is the cost. (Actual cost at the high end of salaries, based on City transparency information - $2436.02.
Consultant says cost is $5,707.311)
Here is a table illustrating that:
Role Hours
spent
working
on
appeal
Hourly
pay,
low end
Hourly
pay, high
end
Total, low
end
Total, high
end
As stated in
Cost Detail
Worksheet
(p.113)
Principal Planner
(note that this assumes a
principal planner is the
project planner. Hourly
may be significantly lower
than this.)
18.5 $50.17 $70.60 $928.14 $1,306.10 $2,927.44
(Project
Planner)
Administrative
Assistant
2.25 $31.15 S43.84 $70.09 $98.64 $204.37
Zoning
Administrator
4.0 $59.18 $88.75 $236.72 $355 $1,066.44
3 Director of
Community
Development
5.5 $82.52 $122.96 $453.86 $676.28 $1,509.09
Total $1,688.81 $2436.02 $5,707.311
For comparison, here are some examples of appeal fees from cities near us. Note that they also may recognize the difference between a developer appealing a decision and a non-applicant appeal.
San Juan Capistrano | $500 – $1,000 | $500 for non-applicants; $1,000 for applicants. | Dana Point | $250 – $500 | $250 for residential projects; $500 for non-residential. | | Mission Viejo | $1,800 – $2,500 | $1,800 for single-family dwellings; $2,500 for all other types. | | San Clemente | ~$1,924 maximum | Typically uses the original application fee, capped at $1,923.83. | And finally, consider that with Design Review streamlining, an updated General Plan, the comprehensive zoning code update, and AI incorporated into the Community Development Department procedures, less and less staff time will be required for appeals. Disproportionate damage would be done by raising the fees to $4,500 at this point. Instead, let's create efficiencies in the process both by educating the public and by completing the reforms already underway.
Penelope Milne
President - CANDO
Canyon Alliance of Neighborhoods Defense Organization
www.lbcando.org
www.facebook.com/www.lbcando.org
949 285-2028