Laguna Beach council keeps MPA petition on May 12 agenda after heated public comments

The Laguna Beach City Council voted unanimously to keep on May 12 the agenda item that will determine when the city weighs in on a petition to expand local Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), after an extended public hearing in which residents, fishermen and environmental advocates clashed over whether the city should wait for state reviews scheduled later this month.

The question before the council was procedural: whether the council should consider the item on May 12 or postpone it so the city could incorporate findings and commentary from the Ocean Protection Council and other state reviews scheduled for May 19 and later. Assistant city staff explained the Fish and Game Commission will hold regional hearings beginning May 19 and that the Ocean Protection Council expects to issue supplemental input afterward, meaning local agencies could have additional material if they waited to act.

That possibility split speakers. Mike Beeman, the petitioner representing the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition, asked the council to wait for the Ocean Protection Council’s review, saying the Department of Fish and Wildlife had evaluated the original petition rather than an amended version his group submitted: “they reviewed our original petition rather than the one that we had submitted that was amended.” Ray Heimstra of Orange County Coastkeeper urged the same course, saying the council should seek “all the information” from the Ocean Protection Council before taking a position.

Other residents and fishing advocates urged the council to keep the May 12 date so people who had already planned to attend would not lose the opportunity to be heard. Longtime resident Jill Littie said removing the item now would be a substantive decision disguised as a procedural one and warned it would deny meaningful public participation: “This is being framed as a procedural decision, a simple matter of agenda management. It is not.” Several commenters also said they believed the state science did not support expanding no‑take zones in the Laguna Beach area.

Council members debated the narrow scope of the hearing — noting Brown Act limits on discussing merits in this session — and the value of hearing additional state input. Multiple councilmembers said they preferred to preserve the publicly noticed May 12 meeting so the full council could weigh committee recommendations and public testimony. A councilmember moved to proceed with the May 12 hearing as scheduled; another seconded, and the motion passed unanimously. The council then adjourned to closed session.

What happens next: The city will hold the May 12 meeting to consider whether to take a position on the petition. The Fish and Game Commission will take regional public testimony starting May 19; the Ocean Protection Council and Fish and Game Commission will have further meetings in June and August, providing additional opportunities for local agencies or residents to submit input.

Authorities, timing and context: The exchange focused on procedural timing rather than the substantive merits of the petition. Officials and speakers repeatedly referenced the Fish and Game Commission and the Ocean Protection Council as the state bodies managing MPA reviews; speakers also referenced Department of Fish and Wildlife evaluations and the city’s Environmental Sustainability Committee. The council did not take a substantive position on the petition at this meeting.