PMMC UPDATES

Date: February 22, 2026

Ms. Megan Garibaldi
City Attorney
City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651

Re: Friends of the Laguna Beach Dog Park – Opposition to Any Proposed Permanent Use Permit for the Pacific Marine Mammal Center at the Laguna Beach Dog Park

Dear Ms. Garibaldi:

This letter is sent on behalf of Friends of Laguna Beach Dog Park (FLBDP), a community organization dedicated to preserving the Laguna Beach Dog Park as a public open space for the residents and families of our community. We are writing to let the City know that we are opposed to the applied-for Permanent Use Permit (PUP) that the City may issue to the Pacific Marine Mammal Center (PMMC) for the use of any portion of the Dog Park property. As we are aware that the Laguna Food Pantry is also interested in the space the PMMC now occupies if vacated, we similarly would like to go on record opposing similar use permits for the Laguna Food Pantry and any other entity that might be interested under the same concerns set forth below. We are submitting this letter now so that our concerns are on the public record from the outset and so that the City is aware of our position before any decision is made.

The Dog Park is public land that was acquired with State grant funds specifically to serve as open space and environmental mitigation land for our community. Our concern is whether the City has the legal authority to permanently convert any portion of it to institutional use without first satisfying several legal requirements that we believe apply.

We have reviewed publicly available records and done our best to understand the legal constraints that we believe govern this property. Based on that review, we have serious concerns about whether any proposed PUP could be approved lawfully, and we describe those concerns below. We respectfully ask that this letter be included in the public record for any future proceedings concerning the Dog Park property, and we request a written response from the City addressing each of the concerns we raise.

How the Dog Park Was Acquired and What That Means

We believe it is important to start with how the Dog Park came to be, because the history of the property’s acquisition shapes everything that follows.

Based on our review of available records, the City acquired the Dog Park property in 1997 using two State grants: a 200,000 Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) grant associated with Highway 133, and a 57,000 Habitat Conservation Fund grant from the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) under the California Wildlife Protection Act. The City also contributed 68,000 from its Open Space Fund. Together, these funding sources reflect a clear public commitment that this land would be preserved as open space and environmental mitigation land for the benefit of the community.

These grants were not unconditional gifts. They came with enforceable restrictions on how the property can be used. Based on our review of available records, the EEM grant restrictions are implemented through a recorded document called an Agreement Declaring Restrictive Covenants (ADRC), which we understand is a standard instrument used to protect the State’s EEM investment and to ensure that grant-funded property remains dedicated to environmental enhancement and mitigation purposes, with reimbursement obligations and formal revocation procedures if the land is converted to other uses. We believe an ADRC of this type was recorded against the Dog Park property in or about October 2003. The ADRC, as we understand it, restricts the use of the property to environmental enhancement and mitigation purposes and runs with the land, meaning those restrictions remain in place regardless of how the City chooses to use the property unless the State formally agrees to release or amend them. The DPR Habitat Conservation Fund grant similarly restricts the property to park and habitat uses and, in our understanding, requires State approval and in some cases legislative action or replacement land of equivalent value and usefulness before the land can be converted to any other use.

We are not aware of any evidence in the public record that the City has sought or obtained approval from either the State agency that administers the EEM grant or from DPR to convert any portion of the Dog Park to institutional use. We believe those approvals are required before any PUP could lawfully be issued, and we are asking the City to confirm whether they have been obtained.

Our Concern About Financial Risk to the City

We also want to flag what we believe could be a significant financial risk to the City if a PUP were issued without first addressing the grant restrictions described above.

Based on our understanding of how EEM grant agreements and ADRCs typically work, if a grantee diverts grant-funded property to a use that is inconsistent with the grant conditions, it may be required to reimburse the State in an amount equal to the greater of the State’s original funding contribution or its proportionate share of the property’s then-current fair market value, including improvements. The State contributed approximately 200,000 of the reported 325,000 purchase price, which is roughly 61.5 percent of the total. If comparable canyon properties in the area are currently valued at approximately 1.5 million per acre, the 8.66‑acre Dog Park property may be worth substantially more today, which would suggest a potential reimbursement obligation to the State on the order of 7.99 million or more, subject to a formal appraisal.

We also believe that PMMC’s reported 1.5 million investments in infrastructure at the site, including pools, pens, utilities, and related facilities, may further increase that exposure, because we understand that ADRC valuation includes improvements as well as land. We raise this not to alarm anyone unnecessarily, but because we think the City and the community deserve to understand the potential financial consequences of proceeding without first resolving these grant compliance questions.

It is also our understanding that grant reimbursement does not cure restriction violations or CEQA compliance, and that any desired change of use would still need to be obtained as set out in both the grant covenants and CEQA mandates.

Our Concern About Environmental Review

We are also concerned that any proposed PUP would require its own environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and that the City could not rely on the environmental exemptions it used for the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) or its extensions to satisfy that requirement for a permanent approval.

CEQA is California’s primary environmental protection law and generally requires public agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of major discretionary decisions before approving them. A categorical exemption which essentially means a determination that a project is too minor to require full environmental review is not, in our view, appropriate for a permanent conversion of grant‑restricted open space to institutional use. We believe such a conversion is fundamentally different in kind from a temporary use and that full environmental review would be required to address issues such as the loss of public open space and recreational land, the permanent impacts of buildings, fencing, parking, and other infrastructure, and the effect on the property’s function as environmental mitigation land under the EEM grant.

We are also concerned about what environmental lawyers sometimes call “piecemealing,” a practice where a larger project is broken into smaller pieces, each of which is approved incrementally, so that the full scope and impact of the project is never fully evaluated. Based on our review of available records, we believe the history of the PMMC use at the Dog Park raises this concern. As we understand it, the City issued an initial one‑year TUP in June 2023, describing the use as temporary and representing that the site would be restored. The City then approved approximately 1.5 million in “temporary infrastructure” under that temporary permit, extended the TUP multiple times while continuing to describe the use as temporary, and indicated as recently as late 2025 that PMMC would be closing and deconstructing the site within weeks. PMMC then applied for a PUP in January 2026, citing its substantial infrastructure investment as a reason the use should be made permanent.

In our view, this sequence of events looks less like a series of independent decisions and more like a gradual path toward permanent institutional use, with each step making the next step harder to reverse. We believe this pattern is exactly what CEQA’s rules against piecemealing are designed to prevent, and we intend to raise this concern in any future proceedings on a proposed PUP.

Our Concern About the Public’s Interest in the Dog Park

Beyond the legal and financial questions, we want to speak plainly about what is at stake for the community.

The Dog Park is a beloved public resource. It was acquired with public funds, State grant money and City open space funds for the explicit purpose of providing open space and environmental mitigation land for the people of Laguna Beach. The community was told that the PMMC use of the Dog Park was temporary. Dog park users were asked to be patient. Residents accepted a significant reduction in the usable area of the park on the understanding that the situation would be resolved, and the land would be returned to its intended use.

We believe the City has a responsibility to honor those representations and to protect the public’s interest in this land. Permanently converting any portion of the Dog Park to institutional use without State approval, without full environmental review, and without a meaningful public process would in our view be inconsistent with the commitments that were made to the community and with the City’s obligations as a steward of public open space.

What We Are Asking the City to Do

We respectfully ask the City to take the following steps before any PUP is proposed or approved:

• Confirm in writing whether the City has sought and obtained approval from the administering State agency for any conversion of EEM‑grant‑funded property at the Dog Park to institutional use and provide copies of all related correspondence.
• Confirm in writing whether the City has sought and obtained approval from the California Department of Parks and Recreation for any conversion of Habitat Conservation Fund‑grant‑funded property at the Dog Park to non‑park or non‑habitat use, including any conversion application, appraisal, and replacement land proposal, and provide copies of all related correspondence.
• Confirm whether the ADRC and any other recorded restrictions on the Dog Park property have been amended, partially released, or terminated, and provide copies of all recorded instruments.
• Provide the public with advance notice of any proposed PUP application, hearing, or related proceeding so that community members may participate and present their views before any decision is made.
• Identify the procedures available to members of the public to appeal or challenge any decision on a proposed PUP.
• Refrain from issuing any PUP unless and until State agency approvals are documented, grant compliance is fully established, any required amendments or releases of recorded restrictions are obtained, and full environmental review under CEQA has been completed and considered by the City Council.

We look forward to the City’s written response to the concerns raised in this letter and ask that this letter be made part of the public record for all future proceedings related to any proposed PUP for the Dog Park property. We are happy to meet with City staff or the City Attorney’s Office to discuss these concerns at any time.

Thank you sincerely for your time and attention to this matter.

This letter is attached for your reference.

Sincerely,

David Finch

President, Friends of Laguna Beach Dog Park

Response: March 2, 2026

Good Morning David (and City Council via Bcc),

Thank you for your letter on behalf of the Friends of the Laguna Beach Dog Park. I appreciate the time and care your organization has taken to articulate its concerns. I am responding on behalf of the City at this stage to clarify the current procedural posture and to ensure that accurate information is shared with your membership.

Current Status

No application for a Conditional Use Permit or Permanent Use Permit has been submitted, and the City is not processing any request to make the temporary field hospital use permanent. The site continues to operate under a Temporary Use Permit that was extended solely because the renovation project has not yet been completed. The Council has not directed staff to prepare any permanent entitlement.

The recent Council discussion was a workshop item intended to surface the request in a public forum and to receive general input. It did not authorize, initiate, or advance any permanent land use action.

Grant Restrictions and Property Acquisition

The City agrees that the grant history and any recorded restrictions are threshold issues that must be resolved before any permanent land use change could be considered. At present, the City is verifying the specific terms of the original grant agreements and any recorded covenants applicable to the property. That review will be completed before any policy direction is sought.

No assumption has been made that the property can be converted to an institutional use. The purpose of this review is to determine what is legally permissible and to share that information publicly.

Environmental Review and Public Process

Any proposal to permanently change the use of the northern portion of the Dog Park would require:

• A formal discretionary land use application
• Public hearings before the Planning Commission
• Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
• Consideration by the City Council

Such an action cannot occur administratively, and the Temporary Use Permit cannot be converted into a permanent entitlement without a full public process.

Financial and Compliance Considerations

The City recognizes the importance of understanding any potential financial or legal obligations associated with the grant funded acquisition. Those issues form part of the compliance review described above and will be addressed before any future policy discussion.

Coordination with Site Users

The City Manager will be convening representatives from the nonprofits and public serving organizations located along Laguna Canyon Road to discuss site configuration, parking, and operational needs. That effort is exploratory and does not predetermine any land use outcome.

Conclusion

In summary:

• No permanent entitlement is under review
• The Temporary Use Permit remains temporary
• Grant compliance and legal constraints are being verified as a threshold matter
• Any permanent proposal would require a public, discretionary, and environmental review process

I hope this clarification is helpful and I would appreciate you sharing my email with your membership to ensure that the community has accurate information about where we are in the process.

Thank you again for your engagement. We will continue to communicate openly as additional information becomes available.

Jeremy Frimond

Assistant City Manager – City of Laguna Beach

Response: March 3, 2026

To: Jeremy Frimond

Assistant City Manager | City of Laguna Beach 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 

Subject: Request for Written Confirmation and Public Records Regarding the PMMC Field Hospital in Laguna Beach Dog Park

Dear Jeremy, Mayor, and Councilmembers:

Thank you for your prompt response and for clarifying the status of the Laguna Beach Dog Park site. Friends of the Laguna Beach Dog Park appreciates the City’s commitment to transparency and accurate communication with our community. We will share your reply letter with our members and park patrons.

I write in response to the City’s recent letter stating that the City is not processing any permanent permit request for the PMMC field hospital footprint and that it is reviewing the property’s grant history and any recorded restrictions.

Because the City’s letter states that no permanent entitlement is pending, I respectfully request clear written confirmation that the City is not entertaining, negotiating, or processing any permanent entitlement for the field hospital footprint at this time.

I also appreciate the City’s statement that grant conditions and recorded restrictions are threshold issues that must be resolved before any permanent land use change is considered. To allow the public to understand and participate meaningfully, I request the documents and timeline that support the City’s review.

First, please provide the dates and terms for the original Temporary Use Permit and each extension. Please also provide the conditions that govern restoration of the site and the protection of public access during the temporary period. Please identify any CEQA notices filed for these actions, including any Notice of Exemption.

Second, please provide copies of the grant agreements, recorded covenants, and any other restriction documents the City is reviewing as part of its threshold analysis. If any State agency has approved a change of use for this park property, or if any recorded restriction has been amended or released, please provide those documents as well.

Third, the City’s letter states that any permanent change would require a formal discretionary application, public hearings, and CEQA review. Please confirm that the City will not pursue a permanent outcome through lease changes, staff-level approvals, or repeated temporary extensions without that full public process.

Finally, the City’s letter references discussions with nonprofits and public-serving organizations about site configuration and operations. As a park user, I ask the City to make those discussions transparent by posting agendas and materials and placing summaries in the public record.

Thank you for your attention. I value the Laguna Beach Dog Park as public open space and continue to ask for clear documentation and a transparent process so the community can participate in decisions that affect it.

Sincerely,
David Finch
President, Friends of Laguna Beach Dog Park