[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6546946,"mediaKeyId","3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef","parentId",3411593,"title","Laguna Beach council clears procedural steps for West Street undergrounding, sets public hearing","audioSeconds",4219,"startMs",6726000,"endMs",10945000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef&start=6726&end=10945","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef/thumbnail_6726000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6546946/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Laguna-Beach-council-clears-procedural-steps-for-West-Street-undergrounding-sets-public-hearing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546946-ff7e1402a030cac87404c07a394312e3/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700661&Signature=Fa5uRk14iuGcYIvy5o2QZzU3HZDolbDyii0dFbbBNTUCeQfcrmXbZVmHyHbPjrZzc6pw5EOJRbob~WJ5Q6UDdbE1CFv6h6ocH0lmuu76hCYkZnnt98pNLhAhfXN2rtk2lYKGKros~6lUcLWzXuB2~gsIJw-ynaxSk-s8t58lwpVOCuQhtCYL9lR~fufEM1YEjWDzV4z0nOb8NqCItIrXPV6pNmOm3EyxCAIZ3ndTyGxwqrnS3iL~LDneYpdBV30BYsM4aLx7U9DKA5fxPdIKgKqZgmHDH31C27D70JJ9I9zI0X~mBV9JTJvJou6GFSwQOS770if02UAy1Yxc6hgCaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","CityofLagunaBeachCA","date","2025-05-20T00:00:00Z","article","Laguna Beach City Council voted May 20 to begin the ballot process for the West Street Utility Undergrounding Assessment District, preliminarily approving the engineer’s report, setting a public hearing and balloting date and directing staff to cast the city-owned ballots in favor.

Council’s action starts the formal Proposition 218 balloting phase; the district is not formed unless a majority of weighted ballots supports the assessment at the public hearing scheduled for Sept. 23, 2025. The council also acknowledged an intended city contribution of roughly $1.4 million toward the district’s general-benefit share if the district is approved and bonds are issued.

City staff and the assessment engineer said the district’s total construction and incidental cost is estimated at about $7.0 million. After the city’s contribution and estimated bond-financing costs, the report shows roughly $6.4 million would be assessed across 101 parcels, with individual assessments ranging from about $24,000 to $111,000 (average about $60,000). The South Coast Water District parcel is an outlier because of its unusually large lot size and receives a substantially higher assessment than most parcels.

Why it matters: the council framed the work as an infrastructure and fire-safety investment. Supporters who addressed the council said undergrounding reduces ignition risk from overhead equipment, improves emergency access and helps preserve property values. Opponents questioned the fairness of the assessment methodology and the distribution of costs across parcels, asked for view-related adjustments to the engineer’s methodology and raised concerns about late changes to assessment amounts and outreach.

What the council approved tonight
- Preliminary adoption of the engineer’s report and the resolution of intention to proceed to the ballot phase. Staff will mail ballots to property owners and hold an informational public meeting in July; the public hearing and formal ballot tally is scheduled for Sept. 23, 2025.
- Acknowledgement of the city’s intention to contribute approximately $1,400,000 toward the district’s general-benefit share, contingent on district approval and prior to bond issuance.
- Direction to the city manager to cast ballots on behalf of three city-owned parcels in the district and to cast those city ballots in favor of the assessments.
- Direction to staff to analyze bond-purchase options and report back, including possible city purchase, interest-rate implications and proposed loan terms.

Engineer and staff presentation: Pierre Sawaya, Capital Program Manager, presented maps and the engineer’s cost breakdown. NV5 assessment engineer Jeff Cooper said his method treated safety, reliability and aesthetic benefit as equal components and avoided a separate ocean-view surcharge, saying view surcharges have been “extremely subjective” in past reports and would be difficult to defend under Proposition 218.

Public comments: More than two dozen property owners and neighbors spoke during the public hearing on the project. Supporters — including Justin Boschnak (31538 West Street), Paul Noring and others who live within the district — emphasized safety, wildfire risk and insurance concerns. Opponents, including residents of Monterey Street and nearby blocks, said the petition and assessment modeling changed since signatures were collected; they asked the council to halt the project, add a view-adjustment methodology, or re-run outreach to ensure residents fully understood final cost estimates.

Procedure and next steps: Staff will finalize mailing of ballot packets and return information and hold a district-wide public meeting in July 2025 to answer questions and present any late clarifications. If a weighted majority of returned ballots supports the assessment at the Sept. 23 hearing, the council may order formation and proceed with bond issuance and construction procurement. If the ballots fail, the district will not form.

Votes at a glance (formal actions taken May 20)
- Continue to ballot phase and preliminarily adopt engineer’s report (resolution of intention and resolution preliminarily adopting the engineer’s report): Approved (motion and second; unanimous vote).
- Acknowledge city intent to contribute ~$1.4 million toward general benefit if district approved and prior to bonds sold: Approved (unanimous).
- Direct city manager to cast ballots for city-owned parcels and cast them in favor: Approved (unanimous).
- Direct staff to return with bond-purchase options and pricing for council consideration in July: Direction given.

What council members said: Council members who remained for the hearing said they wanted the neighborhood’s decision to be resolved by ballot and stressed additional briefings and cost transparency. Council members also noted the city had previously contributed 20% to other undergrounding districts and that further policy decisions about the level of city subsidy could set precedents for future districts.

Community context: The district proposal links to the city’s wildfire mitigation priorities and is one of several neighborhoods identified in the city’s wildfire mitigation and safety plan for eventual undergrounding. Staff suggested a loan-deferment program for qualifying homeowners (age, income, assets) that would allow the city to pay assessments until a triggering event such as sale or transfer.

Evidence from the meeting transcript: Topic introduced by Pierre Sawaya’s presentation on the West Street district and closed when council adopted the resolutions of intention and preliminary engineer’s report and provided ballot-direction to staff at the May 20 meeting. The council set a public hearing and ballot tally for Sept. 23, 2025.

Ending: Ballots and the September public hearing will determine whether West Street property owners move forward with undergrounding. If approved, the district would move to financing and construction phases in the months after bonding is completed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Regular Meeting - May 20, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Laguna Beach City Council voted May 20 to begin the ballot process for the West Street utility undergrounding assessment district, preliminarily approving the engineer’s report, scheduling a Sept. 23 public hearing and directing staff to cast city-owned ballots in favor.","taxTitle","Laguna Beach, Orange County, California","taxId",56774,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546931,"Laguna Beach council agrees to consider city tree‑management policy, pump track and e‑signature rule as future agenda items",90,6404000,6494000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef&start=6404&end=6494","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef/thumbnail_6404000.jpg","/articles/6546931/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Laguna-Beach-council-agrees-to-consider-city-treemanagement-policy-pump-track-and-esignature-rule-as-future-agenda-items","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546931-9ca5154b8624837a2a7033b6ff18065e/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700661&Signature=ThUhPaktn3i9Izo7C0sEM1AD2uMds6qENyPUgG6~sKAsAHihEi1HW9bEq1UjTxCOjEMg0Cbum26Lqs0a92DWPTbT3aBlgYd3PrI8a4pW4QU2arRCyiEf4yKYtdcK8zXWmRXAKtg22dSFOJYUYM0VnxglxIUD5I1ZiHLFlduDqCorRlktUo8Yh2XzsFmJpGDkf7IPfgx3RMimUu5VJ9GgOEIFQoZfaSETyePW88uRrA37KNV9BVrnGEUv4vzGIz0GgH3lAo9EhEdtwavWtrQissAn8JI7M6zIgJ1YelnlrPpUAn0sBiKro44JIu2INgvX5aabZpPsbB~6CErUtIakHw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","At the May 20 meeting the Laguna Beach City Council agreed to place several community requests on future agendas, including a city tree management and trimming policy, a possible pump track feasibility report, a city e‑signature policy and next steps for implementing AB 2355’s permitting process for qualifying unpermitted accessory units.

Key items the council asked staff to agendize:
- City tree trimming/maintenance policy: Council members asked staff to return with options to codify trimming practices and clarify when the city will top or remove city‑owned trees, following multiple public comments about eucalyptus and other trees affecting views and safety. Staff said current practice relies on the city arborist’s professional judgment and that a formal policy would require council consideration.
- Pump track feasibility: Council Member Hallie proposed a future discussion of a pump track similar to the new San Clemente facility; three council members expressed support for a staff report reviewing recreation‑committee recommendations, potential sites and costs.
- E‑signature policy: The city manager and city attorney were asked to return with an e‑signature policy to streamline administrative operations.
- AB 2355 unpermitted‑unit pathway: The Housing and Human Services Committee requested council direction about implementing AB 2355 (state law permitting a process to legalize certain unpermitted dwelling units built before Jan. 1, 2020). Council members asked the city attorney and staff to draft options for the permitting process, including program parameters and outreach.

Why it matters: the items reflect recurring resident concerns about public safety and quality of life (trees and views), recreation amenities for youth (pump track), operational efficiency (e‑signatures) and housing supply/regularization (AB 2355). Council members requested that several of these items be packaged for the next available agendas so the public and committees can weigh in.

Next steps: staff will prepare reports and return on the indicated future dates. Council members asked that tree policy and AB 2355 implementation be developed with community engagement and that any pump‑track analysis include recreation‑committee input and possible site options.

Ending: Council directed staff to place the listed items on future agendas and to consult with relevant advisory committees and departments on community outreach and cost estimates.","Council asked staff to bring back items including a city tree trimming/maintenance policy, a pump‑track feasibility discussion, an e‑signature policy and local implementation steps for AB 2355 (permitting some unpermitted units).",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546936,"Residents press council for tighter oversight of Visit Laguna, capacity controls and enforcement plan for summer crowds",1704,1959000,3663000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef&start=1959&end=3663","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef/thumbnail_1959000.jpg","/articles/6546936/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Residents-press-council-for-tighter-oversight-of-Visit-Laguna-capacity-controls-and-enforcement-plan-for-summer-crowds","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546936-43091470301755fcb22f5d3a23facf1c/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700661&Signature=JVCENyw9xCkXcLmQz3-EfJQjy5zj1~f88IvRcvVpBpjPF-~Qq4MmdObF2841yJqNtH7jbybuvVjsN5a1fyRgL94vNtsOHTanjP0e-HI-Ln-PWNJ36qzUEfDurIM4Sg8yNLnsm-WF2HE6zFT-9PFwHKyTFEz~-aOQ72tW0nbG52OxzyJpjRo1-ef327fbEVv8cKJMCZnZ-VR1ixiihebA817iXIvdoDwcXJu8MHuAfiQp0sYCEEBKK~qmDPU-pXYbhPd58igR01ZX7IlT4UlDDjcXCAbxkvjdYAZ9YVXfhYuQt6i-fL4okeu~ki37-Xu2nMJgkIsbnXhcEKf~VbxI4g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Several Laguna Beach residents used the May 20 public comment period to press the City Council for changes to destination marketing and to request stronger enforcement and capacity controls for busy summer months.

Speakers raised three recurring themes: (1) oversight and accountability for Visit Laguna’s proposed 10‑year agreement with the city, (2) visitor‑capacity management (parking, enforcement and beach access), and (3) stronger on‑the‑ground stewardship and enforcement to protect beaches, tide pools and public safety.

Residents’ concerns and requests: Commenters including Michelle Manda, MJ Abraham, Greg Viviani and others described frequent overcrowding, noise, trash, off‑leash dogs on beaches, and strained lifeguard and city‑service capacity during peak days. Multiple speakers urged the council to require annual audits, retain contract cancellation rights, add resident representation to the Visit Laguna board and place explicit operational limits on marketing tactics so that promotion does not drive large day‑trip crowds into fragile beach areas.

Noted petitions and requests: Mike Bean of the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition urged the council to formally engage California Marine Resources to support petition 202324 for expanded marine‑protected area protections to safeguard kelp forests and marine life. Other speakers proposed a variety of measures to limit impacts, from more enforcement and no‑tolerance citations for rule violations to parking controls and capacity management tied to Coastal Commission rules.

Council response and context: Council members said staff are reviewing the Visit Laguna agreement, discussed options for additional oversight and emphasized that the city will step up enforcement and communications during the summer “surge” season. Council members said they expect weekly reports this summer on enforcement activity, trash removal and ticketing and said they are pursuing both educational programs (stewardship campaigns) and stepped‑up enforcement.

Why it matters: Laguna Beach’s small beaches and limited parking produce acute capacity problems on peak days; residents argued that long marketing contracts without oversight can exacerbate overcrowding. Speakers warned that adding parking or advertising without enforcement will increase public‑safety costs and environmental degradation.

What the council did: The May 20 meeting recorded public comment and council discussion of stewardship and enforcement approaches; no final vote on a Visit Laguna contract was taken at the meeting. Council members asked staff to pursue contract safeguards and to develop communications and enforcement plans for the summer.

Ending: Council members said they would continue contract review and pursue stepped‑up enforcement and capacity‑management planning for the upcoming season. Residents and community groups asked for ongoing council attention, audits and public reporting on enforcement metrics and stewardship outcomes.","Multiple residents urged Laguna Beach City Council to add oversight, audits and guardrails to a proposed long‑term agreement with Visit Laguna and to take stronger steps on enforcement, parking management and visitor‑capacity planning ahead of summer season.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6546941,"Council approves amended Be Well mobile mental‑health agreement with reduced hours and lower cost",953,5346000,6299000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef&start=5346&end=6299","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3411593-848d24d0587a6a60b0fcf606bb5679ef/thumbnail_5346000.jpg","/articles/6546941/Laguna-Beach/Orange-County/California/Council-approves-amended-Be-Well-mobile-mentalhealth-agreement-with-reduced-hours-and-lower-cost","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6546941-2bd79a09207aa189874f9e974eae8278/orig.mp4?Expires=1773700661&Signature=DIfb6b32zoCpm98WjTGNz2fUTLiILuecsfEzni7Cf6FehvfUXeOTFIvCHR7Gykl0Q5QasKthl2UDE0r1qaCN-8PSAXOjusahxf5jE5h5hb6Nq6pmncj-M8zTl1nHRXSRylMOeLe2kwA8KbfyahlB1XUxxp3Tx7WVcrJ9u9QDDTOVXrbIMK4nGRKKmjZX~Os-XZwqFEPyOr6QMBpE-BqvMK4f0l3oA9zWv9QvojF3ldAtezRJUqhP8wCRvSEdkTd1z1WHbrKDCpdUcm2OD9XsRi66POUXxzNNTl7tCOolcji3Hk5~6jtz9USiNZhc7LpIC1PvtrXDsG6ghmK1EkzZzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Laguna Beach City Council voted May 20 to approve an amendment to the city’s mobile mental‑health services agreement with Be Well, continuing an on‑the‑ground crisis response van program while reducing service hours and administrative overhead.

City staff and Be Well representatives said the pilot program began in August 2023. Under the amended agreement the program will retain two crisis‑intervention specialists operating seven days a week but move to a consolidated 10 a.m.–6 p.m. daily response window (an eight‑hour daily shift) to align staffing with peak call times. Staff told the council the amendment reduces the program’s annual cost from roughly $850,000 to about $491,000 while preserving core clinical responder capacity.

Why it matters: city staff said the revised model will continue mobile crisis coverage without a general‑fund impact in fiscal year 2025–26 by relying on a mix of private donations and state grants. Council members and committee reviewers — notably the Housing and Human Services Committee — praised the program as providing on‑scene mental‑health and substance‑use support and urged better integration with local emergency services, hospital discharge planning and housing navigation.

Program details and numbers presented at the meeting: staff reported the program has responded to approximately 7,300 calls since inception, with about 20% of calls originating from public‑safety dispatch. Be Well staff said the program’s client caseload is approximately 60% unhoused and 40% housed. The city manager and Be Well representatives told the council that the program would pivot to greater coordination with the hospital on emergency‑room discharges, pursue closer integration with Fire and Marine Safety for patient‑care handoffs and explore colocating administrative/reporting space at a city facility (the CRC) to save rent.

Funding and next steps: staff said the amendment keeps no general‑fund impact for FY 2025–26 by combining remaining private gifts, state grants and city‑managed funds for one year while staff and Be Well pursue sustainable funding options. Council members urged staff to increase resident awareness of the service, pursue partnerships with the hospital and Medi‑Cal/CalAIM reimbursement channels, and bring back updates on formal referral and coordination protocols.

What council decided: the council approved the staff recommendation to amend the Be Well agreement and continue the mobile crisis program under the revised staffing and financial model. Council discussion stressed the value of continued outreach, case‑management connections and better integration with mission‑hospital discharge planning.

Speakers quoted or cited in the meeting: Jeremy (city staff presenting the amendment) and Be Well representatives Blair Contrado (chief strategy officer) and Jeff Tenney (director, mobile operations) described operational changes and funding sources. Multiple council members praised program results and urged expanded collaboration with local emergency and hospital partners.

Ending: Council approved the amendment with unanimous support. Staff will proceed with the revised model, pursue partnerships to maintain funding, and report back on coordination with emergency and hospital partners.","City approves a one‑year amendment to the Be Well mobile crisis program that reduces service hours and consolidates administrative functions; staff says the revised model will cost about $491,000 for the coming year and carry no general‑fund impact for FY 2025–26.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Laguna Beach council clears procedural steps for West Street undergrounding, sets public hearing

Laguna Beach council agrees to consider city tree‑management policy, pump track and e‑signature rule as future agenda items

Residents press council for tighter oversight of Visit Laguna, capacity controls and enforcement plan for summer crowds

Council approves amended Be Well mobile mental‑health agreement with reduced hours and lower cost