#13
L 4
LAGUNA
To preserve and enhance the unique village character of Laguna Beach Honorable Mark Orgill and City Council RE: Environmental Impact Report The Laguna Beach city council wisely engaged a consultant to conduct an environmental impact report on its proposed effort to build up to 600 residential units downtown. The scope of this effort is mind-boggling and the thought of the increased stress on parking, congestion, pollution and limited evacuation capability is chilling. The EIR is essential.
According to the city's report: "The project has now advanced to the point where the Program EIR is essentially at a screen check ready draft. Under normal circumstances, the next step would be to complete the administrative review, circulate the Draft EIR for public review, and continue processing the Downtown Specific Plan Phase II amendments." All we are asking is for the city to do this. We paid for it, so proceed.
So, what's the problem?
The city is citing SB 131 that was passed June 30, 2025 that created exemptions for manufacturing facilities, high speed rail and wildfire mitigation efforts. Since this time Sacramento has expanded this to apparently include increasing residential densities.
The city seems poised to stop cold the EIR we taxpayers paid for in light of this latest nonsense from Sacramento.
This is a problem.
All residents of Laguna Beach deserve no less than to understand the environmental impact of adding up to 600 residential units. This report, and the conversation that it will engender is important for us - for our safety and well being.
Increasing the density of downtown must be the considered choice of residents and not from the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of the city.
We're asking the city council to do what we taxpayers paid for and the city committed to do with producing the EIR.
Merrill Anderson
President, Village Laguna, Inc.
Finally, I would strongly encourage that the City make the updates to its General Plan and its Seventh Cycle Housing Element with these thoughts in mind. Care should be taken not to include State mandates as general City policy. The City may currently be constrained by State law, but it needs to be clear in its municipal plans that it is not adopting State regulations of its own accord. The policy should be clear on what the City believes is good policy for the City and its residents.
In the same vein, the City should reconsider its response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report (Consent Item 7). For example, response to Finding Six on page six, says "the City disagrees that compliance with its Housing Element planning obligations is unrealistic or unattainable." Finding Six itself says in part, RHNA allocations are unrealistic and not attainable." The Housing Element is not mentioned in the Finding. The City comment is unnecessary and should be removed from the document.
With Regards,
Mary Locatelli
To: Laguna Beach City Council Members RECEIVED
Re: Agenda Item 13 Downtown Specific Plan
Consent Item 7 Response to OC Grand Jury Report JUL 20 2026 City Clerk's Office
Date: July 21, 2026 City of Laguna Beach, CA
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing in support of Agenda Item 12 and future plans regarding the downtown specific plan. In particular, I like the ideas of including broader community involvement and evaluating the entire community in assessing needs. Most of all, 1 am pleased that the City has included a legislative advocacy pillar in its forward-looking plans.
The staff report does an excellent job in summarizing the challenges facing the City of Laguna Beach when it says:
three out of every four acres within the City are subject to enhanced wildfire building standards, defensible space requirements, and ongoing vegetation management obligations. Beyond wildfire exposure, the City's ability to accommodate future housing is further constrained by steep topography, environmentally sensitive lands, limited infrastructure, and significant evacuation challenges. The community is served by only three primary evacuation routes consisting of northbound and southbound Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road, each of which can be compromised during, for example, a wildfire incident. These routes are fed by an extensive network of narrow, winding hillside residential streets that present additional challenges during emergency evacuations.
I would add to that list the very real potential that the City may lose its hospital and emergency room, a genuine threat to the health of both current and future populations. (It may be worth mentioning that the hospital closure threat is directly related to another Statewide regulation on seismic retrofitting.)
As the staff report says, State housing laws have been developed using a one size fits all approach. The result is that some municipalities, like Laguna Beach, end up almost in a death pact with the State. That is wrong. The State should not enact laws that force municipalities to choose between complying with the law or putting its residents at additional risk; to wit topography, which limits available land available for housing; costly wildfire management requirements and the resulting threat of adding even more residents to an already constrained evacuation system; and a medical system that may be unable to properly care for its already aging population, much less additional residents. These all increase risks to residents. And they all put increased pressure on the City's fiscal sustainability. That is the opposite of good governance.