Laguna Beach to repeal development ordinance under referendum

An ordinance refining development standards in Laguna Beach will be repealed in its entirety, as the City Council considered its options Tuesday in response to a qualified referendum.

The zoning code amendment being repealed dealt with building height, mass, bulk and parking within the commercial districts, especially the downtown area.

It placed restrictions on lot mergers to no more than 15,000 square feet for properties within 500 feet of the downtown specific plan. The language in the ordinance excluded public facilities and parking structures from that restriction. Additionally, the ordinance established a height limit of 36 feet for any element of new buildings.

The ordinance was adopted on Aug. 16, 2022, leading up to that year’s November election. The City Council had chosen to formally oppose a Laguna Residents First ballot initiative that sought to have residents vote on the approval of major development projects along Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road. Measure Q, as it appeared on the ballot, was defeated with 7,965 votes (64.21%) opposing it.

News

Laguna Beach refines development standards

Laguna Beach introduced changes to the regulation of development in its commercial district in a special meeting of the City Council on Tuesday night.

July 27, 2022

Signatures for a referendum petition against the ordinance arrived on the city clerk’s desk a month after its adoption, and on Oct. 28, 2022, the Registrar of Voters certified the signatures and qualified the referendum. A staff report said the ordinance has been suspended since the referendum qualified.

Mayor Sue Kempf, Mayor Pro Tem Alex Rounaghi, and Councilman Bob Whalen voted unanimously to have city staff take the steps to repeal the ordinance. The panel also requested that elements from the ordinance that don’t conflict with state housing law be incorporated in a comprehensive zoning code update.

Councilman Mark Orgill recused himself from the item due to a source of income conflict, and Councilman George Weiss was absent.

Council members also had the option to submit the ordinance to the voters as drafted.

The discussion opened with Kempf asking City Atty. Megan Garibaldi if the ordinance had any legal issues.

“[State Senate Bill] 330 requires objective design criteria for housing-related projects, and there is a potential for that argument in Ordinance No. 1675,” Garibaldi replied. “I think it’s fixable with a change to an ordinance. Unfortunately, your hands are tied in doing that tonight with the current ordinance, given the referendum.”

Whalen crafted the motion with the threat of potential litigation in mind.

“I think the issue we have is the one the city attorney mentioned, which is there’s a pending lawsuit,” Whalen said. “We’ve been advised, as the mayor asked and was answered, the ordinance here runs afoul of some of the state housing laws that are now in effect. The problem is that even if it’s affirmed by the voters, we’re going to have that defect that we can’t avoid.

“I think what we ought to do is repeal the ordinance, direct staff to bring it back with these provisions, in a new ordinance that eliminates any concerns relative to housing. We will continue to have these limitations in effect, … and we’ll get them in an ordinance that’s not going to be subject to challenge on a housing basis.”

Elections code prohibits the city from passing an ordinance after repealing one that was subject to a referendum that is “materially identical” for one year, Garibaldi said.

During the public hearing, a few of the past supporters of Measure Q called on the three council members considering the item to send the ordinance to the voters.

Rounaghi, a first-term council member who was elected after the vote on the ordinance, backed Whalen in saying that residents would not want public funds used to defend an ordinance with legal issues.

“When I spoke to voters, one of the biggest concerns was the unintended consequence with Measure Q, and that was when voters pass something, it can’t be changed,” Rounaghi said. “Ballot box planning for land use is not a good idea.”