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
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.
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.
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.
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