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
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
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: 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
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
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. 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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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!
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
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!
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!
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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!
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.
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) 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
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.
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.
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