LB Council Agenda for Tuesday, June 23, 2026

What’s on the Laguna Beach City Council Agenda for Tuesday, June 23, 2026

A happy Juneteenth today – which also means the precipice of summer 2026, and Festival season.

What follows is my Council agenda summary for the City Council meeting set for Tuesday, June 23rd, 2026.  At the next meeting, July 7th, 2026 we re-enter the Zoom world!  How much fun will that be?  I know I’m being a tad snarky.  Zoom is a great tool.  I like that it helps expand the reach of your local government to folks who are busy / still at work / at home with family / or struggle to attend in person, especially when we go late into the evening.  The flip side of that, though, is Zoombombing.  I’ll stay optimistic and hope that a Laguna spirit of neighborliness and community prevails and we see a world of Good Zoom, not Bad Zoom.

In the Agenda summary, I cover what I think are the more noteworthy items that will appear on the Council agendas.  If you want to see the entire agenda, click here.   My agenda summary doesn’t include all of the items up for consideration – just ones that I think should have additional community awareness.  Please share this with others if you represent a neighborhood association (thanks!).

Our meetings generally start at 5:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month at Laguna Beach City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue – the meeting is in the Council Chambers adjacent to Fire Station #1.   But this week, we start the meeting’s regular business at 3:00 p.m. – a special (and rare) change so that folks can attend the Sawdust’s 60th birthday celebration later.

I’m going to focus on the agenda today, but I did just send out a Promenade Update under separate cover.  Please take a look at that, and it may answer your questions as you peer (if I could, I’d insert an eyeballs emoji here) over the fence at this very high profile site and project (I do it, too).   Have I mentioned before how interesting it is for us to coordinate a capital project so smack dab in the middle of where everyone goes? (if I could, I’d insert the barf emoji there).

There is no Study Session, as the regular meeting starts at 3:00 p.m.

I’ll highlight these items:

  • We get to meet Oro, the Fire Department’s new service dog.  Who can resist a presentation involving a dog?
  • Our longtime colleague and Assistant City Manager, Gavin Curran, is headed towards retirement (and a nice trip to Ireland).  I have appreciated Gavin’s calm steadiness while I’ve been City Manager here – and his wealth of knowledge as to why Laguna does what it does.  I’m going to miss Gavin, but am happy to celebrate his time with us.
  • The annual report for the Laguna Beach Tourism and Marketing District is in for a receive and file.  It reports on 2024-25 activities (looking back) and 2026-27 workplans (forward looking).   The TMD already released the 2025-26 report.
  • Council is asked to approve the 7-year capital plan for transit, pavement, and signal synchronization that is a part of our Measure M / OCTA requirements.  Of particular note is our relatively high Pavement Condition Index (PCI) – it’s 87.4, which means that our pavement condition is well above the OCTA required 75 and slightly above our goal range of 82-85.  Now this doesn’t mean we don’t have potholes – we do, and I’m sure after I send this out, I’ll hear about twelve of them across town 🙂  But it does mean that we’re keeping up as we should.  Yay, Public Works!
  • Kudos to our Fire Admin team, who did some hard work to get more and better bids on our Fuel Mod Zone construction projects – it shows how good procurement with multiple bidders can reduce costs.  The FMZ next up for construction is FMZ 19, which is Diamond – Crestview.  Construction is a costly part of an FMZ effort  – where you remove invasives and clear back much of the vegetation from the untouched environment.  Maintenance is less costly per acre, but is forever.
  • About sixteen people will be appointed to the Hospital Task Force, which will help the City prepare and respond to the possible closure of the Mission Hospital, Laguna Beach emergency room and hospital.
  • Then there is the final action (we hope) on the FY 2026-27 proposed budget.  I wrote about this quite a bit, and held two town halls about it.  The last one, just this past Tuesday, was attended by about 20 folks who had very good and thoughtful questions.  We talked about position counts, trends, transparency, capital projects, how Laguna does its budgets, and much more. In summary for this year, the proposed budget is balanced and maintains our 20% reserves (plus a 7% disaster contingency reserve).  But it allocates less for capital improvements than in years past – this is in part done to address other one-time needs, as well as because we’re in this period of time where PERS costs are peaking, and we’ll have one large hotel down for construction.  I expect more good questions from Council on this on Tuesday, as well as some thoughtful ideas for increased efficiency from the Council ad hoc committee.  What we don’t tackle on Tuesday, we can work on across the summer and into the fall.  The budget itself is always subject to change, including changing economic conditions.  I really appreciate the hard work of our Finance team on this, led by Michelle Bannigan and Amy Massey (both relatively new to us in Laguna).
  • There is a Council ad hoc committee proposed for the Neighborhood Congregational Church project.
  • Council will discuss extending the permits for the 3 remaining outdoor dining areas (in front of Oto Sushi, Tango, and the Agean Café), which currently expire June 30, 2026.  This item also suggests that we further study the local market needs – from residents, vendors, and others – as the retail environment continues to change.
  • Lastly, there will be a protest hearing on proposed rate increases associated with solid waste collection.  If there is not majority protest, and all rates are approved, it would result in about a $5 per month increase for most single family homes.  Most residential settings with 2-8 units will see a decrease.  Much of this (about $2.38 and $1.35 of the $5 per month) is caused by increased disposal fees at the County of Orange’s landfills and the mandatory CPI pass through to the contractor (respectively)  -we have no say in either.
  • The Design Review Efficiency Ordinance is back for its first reading – please review the staff report (page 2) to see changes from the May 12, 2026 meeting.
  • There is one DRB appeal (855 La Vista Drive), but it’s recommended for continuance to July 7th, as one party was unable to attend on June 23rd.

One more community note:  Another community survey is in the field possibly today and into the weekend.  It asks again about revenue measures, including a restaurant and bar 3% tax on food and beverages at these venues (this would have to be approved by the voters).  As a gentle reminder, not all surveys are alike.  Surveys like this one are intended to determine the effectiveness of arguments – pro and con – and to see if a ballot measure would withstand that scrutiny.  That’s why the questions seem leading – they are designed to mirror arguments in a campaign.  We’re not trying to get the answers we want to hear – that would be valueless.

As always, thanks for reading!  Also, please join us if you can at the actual meeting.   If you don’t want to be on this email list, please let me know and I’ll remove you (no hard feelings – we all get a lot of emails).

A Promenade Update – Friday, June 19th

There is a lot in motion at the Promenade, with many steps forward and sometimes a few back.  The steps forward include the:

  • Delivery and placement of much of the decomposed granite (DG) sections;
  • Planting of the 48” box Eucalyptus polyanthemos (Silver Dollar Gum);
  • Bollard installation near Coast Highway;
  • Fountain / art pedestal has been poured and is plumbed;
  • Irrigation mainlines are in and connected to the water system; and
  • Speaker/lighting poles have been stood up and the electrical conduits are in place (along with cabling that will support lighting across the middle).

And the brickwork is going in.  But it’s going in slowly.  The design is pretty complex – a herringbone pattern where the tumbled bricks lay vertically on their sides.  The crews struggled a bit for a while with it, and parts of the laydown were skewed.  Argh.  So they had to remove this section and re-do it.

This week, we had to lift out (they were still boxed) some of the smaller Eucalyptus polyanthemos because the arborist was concerned about their survivability and health – we’ll return these and look for other trees of the same species and similar size. We are also considering two 24” box Eucalyptus spathulata, which are known to do better in saline environments.  We’re monitoring closely the Quercus virginiana nearest Tuvalu (it was evaluated by the arborist today), as its leaf drop has been more significant than the other one near the center of the Promenade.  But it’s being watered well and should hold its own.  The two Oaks will be planted in place when a new special soil arrives in the coming days.  Irrigation is operative at the tree wells.

The upcoming week will see more bricklaying, including the rest of the central area which has a cement base now. Evenings/nights will see paving of the areas in front of the stores and restaurants with thinner brick pavers (in the same herringbone pattern).  More DG will come in, and more plants.   Street furniture has begun to arrive and is being stored at the CRC. Additional furniture will continue to arrive over the next 2 weeks.  Speakers and the string lights will be attached to the poles and will be powered up.  We also expect delivery of the “Kelp Forest” sculpture to be placed on the fountain base.

We are still gunning for opening up of much of the site to the public and removing much of the fencing before July 3, but a couple of things might make us leave some areas protected with low snow-fencing.  The western brick area, and the location where Forest meets Glenneyre will be among the last sections to be completed (this site includes the large sycamore).

There is light at the end of the tunnel.  It could still be a train, but we’re all working to have it just be a light.  I so appreciate everyone’s patience, as well as the hard work of the contractor, Sara Bekr the construction manager, Jorge the lead inspector, Katrina our project arborist, and our Public Works team led by Tom Perez.

City Manager Update June 9, 2026

Hi Folks & a Happy June to You —
 
I know I’m early, surprise surprise, but what follows is my Council agenda summary for the City Council meeting set for Tuesday, June 9th, 2026. 
 
In the Agenda summary, I cover what I think are the more noteworthy items that will appear on the Council agendas.  If you want to see the entire agenda, click here.   My agenda summary doesn’t include all of the items up for consideration – just ones that I think should have additional community awareness.  Please share this with others if you represent a neighborhood association (thanks!).  Our meetings generally start at 5:00 p.m. on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of the month at Laguna Beach City Hall, 505 Forest Avenue – the meeting is in the Council Chambers adjacent to Fire Station #1. 
 
Before I dive into it, I wanted to update you on Laguna Canyon Road – I had planned to make a presentation and ask for direction on signing a “State of Good Repair” letter that is a step within the relinquishment process at this June 9 meeting.   As some folks know, we had a Town Hall about it, and presented a draft staff report on our agenda page.  That town hall made me think about some key things that folks felt were unanswered – and I acknowledge that my answers left something to be desired.  That made me think more that I really needed to dig in further and effectively answer the questions to the Council’s and residents’ satisfaction.  So I asked Caltrans for more time for the City to tell Caltrans whether we would sign the letter (again, only one step in a long relinquishment process).  They agreed to give more time, though at least the end of 2026.  So over the next several months, I’ll continue to work on this issue with the staff, the public, and Council to secure those answers, not bringing something back until the questions are addressed.  I thank all who participated in these discussions to date, and promise to keep up the dialogue with you all.    
 
Study Session (starting at 3:00 p.m.)  
This week the Council will hold interviews for a number of Commission and Committee appointments.  Then, they’ll get a summary of a recent Community Survey that went out in May, as a follow-up to a similar one in October 2025.  The survey polled about 400 people on city issues, as well as stating positive and negative sides of revenue measures that could be considered for the November 2026 ballot.  I heard from a number of folks who were polled.  Some folks asked me “why do you ask leading questions in there?  Is it because you want a specific answer?”  Actually, no.  Some of the questions were indeed leaning – and others leaned back the other way.  We want to know how folks respond when presented with various arguments.  It would be kind of foolish of us to set up a poll that told us what we wanted to hear, versus how folks actually felt.  Please take the time to read the results – I found them pretty interesting.  At the end of the presentation and discussion, Council will be asked to give us some direction on whether to bring something back to them (in a public meeting) about a revenue measure.  Again, Study Sessions are for discussion – not adoption.      
 
Council’s Regular Session (starts at 5:00 p.m.)
I’ll highlight these items:
  • Providence Mission Hospital’s Chief Executive, Seth Teigen, will make a presentation (with Q&A) as to the preliminary vision forMission Hospital, Laguna Beach.  This issue is very important, and well worth a tune-in during the meeting.
  • There are proposed  amendments to the Council Policy Manual, which are minor but I never want anyone to think I won’t highlight these – one has to do with protecting employee medical information, and another allows the Council to start regular business meetings – sporadically, not as a regular practice – earlier in the day at 3:00 if circumstances warrant it (like next meeting, when the Sawdust’s 60th anniversary occurs later that night).  Remember too that soon Zoom meetings begin again – those come back in July.
  • We’ll talk a bit about plan options for the Village Green Park playground – our friends in South Laguna will want to take a look.
  • Our great Fire and Emergency Management team will update the Council and community on progress with the 2025 Wildfire Mitigation and Fire Safety Plan – lots of important things have been accomplished.
  • There is one DRB appeal item planned for hearing  – 31565 Eagle Rock Way (oops, I just noted that my Agenda Summary last time suggested that this would go to JULY 9, not June 9.  31565 Eagle Rock will be heard at this June 9th meeting – sorry about that).  399 Pearl Street is proposed to be continued to July 28th.
 
I’m sorry to miss the final Community Pool Party this coming Friday – gonna miss that place (I’ve been swimming there since 1996!). I’m traveling north to my niece’s HS graduation, so folks will have to send me photos of dogs enjoying their one and only pool swim.
 
As always, thanks for reading.  Also, please join us if you can at the actual meeting.   If you don’t want to be on this email list, please let me know and I’ll remove you (no hard feelings – we all get a lot of emails).
 
Dave Kiff
City Manager, City of Laguna Beach
505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA  92651
949-497-0704 | dkiff@lagunabeachcity.net 
Remember to use Ask Laguna via our website or via app!  It’s a great way to report in possible concerns and violations.  Have you signed up for Nixle yet?  Text 92651 to 888-777 to get alerts and other important City information as it happens.

LBUSD Policy Didn’t Survive Contact With Power

Laguna Beach School Board’s majority spent years defending governance structures before deciding one of them wasn’t really mandatory after all.

For nearly two years, Laguna Beach has been told that governance matters.

Our policies and bylaws matter.

Transparency and process matters.

At least, that was the pitch to help elect Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills. It justified all of their governance committees, policy reviews, legal questions, public criticism of district leadership, and hours of board meetings spent debating how LBUSD should operate.

The promise was simple enough: institutions are stronger when decisions are made through transparent, established processes instead of the preferences of a few people in power.

Then came May 14, 2026, when a new superintendent was appointed. Suddenly, the process has become negotiable.

This is not a story about whether Dr. Don Austin is qualified, and it’s not even really a story about whether the board had the legal authority to appoint him. School boards have broad authority to hire superintendents, and no one needs to pretend otherwise.

The question is not whether the board had power, but how they used it.

For Howard Hills, his governance obsession did not begin when he was sworn in. For more than a decade, he has shown up around LBUSD with questions about leadership, process, board authority, and whether the district was following the rules closely enough. Howard built a public identity around governance language.

Sheri Morgan’s record fits inside the same frame. Her political brand has been transparency, access, and community voice. She has presented herself as someone trying to pull LBUSD out of a closed-door culture and into a more responsive, public-facing one. Whether you agreed with her or not, the pitch was clear: the old way was too insulated, too controlled, too dismissive of the community.

In 2026, that governance language became formal board work. LBUSD approved an Ad Hoc Governance Committee to review the district’s governance processes, including the clarity, organization, and alignment of board bylaws and policies with CSBA models, statutes, and board-adopted norms. Howard led the charge to create this committee because he insisted that governance structure mattered.

LBUSD’s own Board Bylaw 9310 says board policies are adopted to set clear procedural expectations for district governance. It says policies are binding unless they conflict with law or collective bargaining agreements. The district’s policy manual is supposed to be the framework for how the board governs.

But then Board Policy 2120 became inconvenient.

On June 4, 2026, Sheri Morgan defended the superintendent appointment by arguing that the prior superintendent search had not expired. According to her, the district had already conducted an extensive search less than a year earlier, Dr. Austin had stated he was part of that process, and restarting the work would be unnecessary, expensive, and fiscally irresponsible.

“There is no statute of limitations,” Sheri said. “There is no expiration date on that search process from less than one year ago. Restarting that process and redoing that work is not required by law or policy.”

She also said repeating a search that cost more than $50,000 and took four months would be “fiscally irresponsible.”

That is one argument. However, Howard Hills made another.

He did not simply argue that the policy had been satisfied. He actually argued that the policy was not mandatory.

“The bylaw is not mandatory and it’s not compulsive,” Hills said. Then he went further, saying the board could appoint a superintendent “any way the board wants to do it and any time.”

After all the speeches, all the policy debates, all the governance lectures, all the concern about procedure and institutional standards, Howard suddenly announced that the superintendent-search policy was not compulsory and that the board could, essentially, however it wanted, appoint a superintendent.

Funny how flexible governance becomes when it finally applies to them.

If Howard had never spent years questioning governance, if Sheri had never built her case around transparency, if the board had not created a committee around policy alignment and board-adopted norms, this might read like an ordinary disagreement over how much process is enough.

But that is not the record.

The record is a board majority that used process as both sword and shield until the moment process pointed back at them.

Dr. Joan Malczewski put the concern plainly during the June 4, 2026 board meeting. Search processes exist so institutions can protect themselves from the weaknesses of individual decision-making. They protect against bias, generate better information, create buy-in, and, most importantly, protect the institution and the person being hired.

A superintendent search process is not only about finding a good person. It is about creating legitimacy around the choice.

Joan was not informed that Don Austin was a candidate until the May 14, 2026 closed session, when she was met with a motion to hire him. She said she had no prior information that conversations were happening, no knowledge that negotiations were underway, and no role in determining a start date.

This was not a board-led process; it was a majority-led outcome.

There is a difference.

And that brings us to Dee Perry. Most conversations about the current board majority focus on Howard and Sheri, which makes sense. They speak the most, drive the arguments, and attract the heat.

But they cannot govern alone.

The majority is three votes, and their third vote is Dee Perry.

Dee’s role is quieter, but it is not smaller. She often appears surprised, uncomfortable, or only partially informed. She can seem adjacent to the controversy rather than central to it. But when the vote matters, Dee Perry is not a spectator; she seals everyone’s fate.

Howard and Sheri can argue, posture, explain, defend, and accuse. This allows Dee to remain aloof and pretend to be just a passenger along for the ride. And when she says she was “a little bit in the dark,” that does not make the vote easier for us to swallow. It should make it more concerning. If a trustee is unsure, uninformed, or surprised by how a major decision reached the board, that is the moment to slow the process down, not hand it the final vote it needs.

Dee may not be driving the car, but she keeps handing the keys to Howard and Sheri.

The board majority can keep saying this was about stability. They can say it was about saving money and avoiding another long search. They can say Dr. Austin was already vetted, so the policy was not mandatory. They can say the law allowed it.

Maybe some of that is true, but none of it answers the larger questions.

If governance mattered enough to build a political brand around it, why did it stop mattering here?

If policies matter when Howard and Sheri are criticizing district staff, former board members, or prior decisions, why do they become advisory when Howard already has the votes?

If transparency is the standard, why was the public asked to accept the explanation after the decision rather than being included beforehand?

And if Dee really was “a little bit in the dark,” why was she still comfortable becoming the light that turned the whole thing green?

This is about whether the board majority is willing to hold itself to the same governance standard it spent the last two years demanding from everyone else.

So far, the answer looks pretty clear.

Governance matters — until it gets in their way.

The Cost Shift Hiding in LBUSD’s Budget

Employee benefits are complicated, but the question is simple: will the Laguna Beach School Board protect its staff or ask them to absorb more?

In LBUSD’s proposed 2026–27 budget materials, one line immediately stood out to me.

The Budget Overview shows planned spending dropping from about $93.49 million to $90.15 million. Certificated salaries increase from about $35.57 million to $36.10 million, classified salaries increase from about $13.22 million to $13.58 million, and combined, salaries increase by about $892,000.

Employee benefits go down.

They decrease from about $21.60 million to $21.45 million, a drop of roughly $145,000. The budget shows certificated salaries up 2.1%, classified salaries up 2.7%, and employee benefits down 0.7%.

That is what sent me down the rabbit hole.

I know school district budgets are mostly people, as they should be. Public education runs on teachers, aides, counselors, office staff, custodians, specialists, nurses, administrators, and the people who keep the system functioning every day.

In California, roughly 80% of current school spending goes toward staffing and LBUSD is right in that range. The district’s 2025–26 budget stated that compensation accounted for 77% of the general fund. For 2026–27, LBUSD lists about $71.14 million in personnel and staffing costs against a $90.15 million spending plan. That is about 79%, with the caveat that overall planned spending is lower, which makes compensation a larger share of the budget.

So the issue is not that Laguna spends too much on employees, but what happens when a small raise meets rising healthcare costs.

LBUSD’s benefits line is not just health insurance. It includes STRS, PERS, Medicare, unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, retiree benefits, OPEB, and health and welfare benefits. In the proposed 2026–27 budget, total employee benefits are about $21.45 million. Health and welfare benefits are about $5.50 million of that total, or roughly 6.1% of the district’s entire spending plan.

Healthcare costs themselves are moving fast. Nationally, the average employer-sponsored family premium rose 6% in one year, and single coverage rose 5%. California is even higher, with family premiums increasing 24% since 2022, outpacing both inflation and wages.

So when LBUSD shows a small salary increase and a decrease in benefits, the public should ask what employees are actually gaining.

A 2% raise can disappear very quickly when healthcare premiums increase. A raise on paper can become a wash in real life. For some employees, especially those covering a spouse or family, it can become a loss.

The Michael Bishop healthcare review helped me understand why this is so complicated.

LBUSD’s health plan year begins October 1, and the district’s fiscal year begins July 1. That means the district builds and adopts its budget before final healthcare renewal rates are fully known. The district is budgeting on one calendar while healthcare costs move on another.

Then there are the plans: PPO, HMO, individual, spouse, children, family. Employees get married, divorced, have babies, retire, change jobs, add dependents, lose dependents, and move between eligibility categories. Those changes do not always happen neatly at the start of a fiscal year.

I am not pretending to be a healthcare expert. I am learning this as I go because the budget number did not sit right with me. But the more I learn, the clearer it becomes that this system is easy to get wrong without serious guardrails.

The review found that from 2022–23 through 2025–26, employee contributions were not set in accordance with the collective bargaining agreements. The district covered a larger share of the total annual healthcare costs than it should have under the contract.

The review also points to a systems problem: timing issues, multiple plans, multiple tiers, changing employee census data, contribution caps, and the need for better coordination between Human Resources and Business Services. The recommendations focus on controls, communication, budget comparisons, review of the cap structure, review of plan design, and possible alignment of the plan year with the fiscal year.

But this should not become a quiet excuse to reduce benefit support.

Under the contract, the district pays up to a negotiated cap, and employees pay what is above it. For example, certificated PPO family coverage, the annual district cap is about $25k. The 2025–26 PPO family premium is about $39k, leaving the employee responsible for about $14k, or $1.4k per contribution period.

For Kaiser HMO family coverage example, the annual district cap is about $21k. The 2025–26 premium example is about $28k. That leaves the employee responsible for about $7k, or about $700 per contribution period.

Those are not small numbers, and that is why salary and benefits have to be discussed together. A district can offer a modest raise, hold to the cap, reduce its benefit costs, and still leave employees carrying a larger share of the burden.

That may be legal under the contract or clean on a spreadsheet, but it still deserves public scrutiny.

The 2021 MOU shows that the district has used bargaining to address healthcare pressure before. LBUSD and LaBUFA agreed to cover increased health and welfare benefits of about $350,000. To me, that says the pressure on healthcare costs was already obvious. The district and union saw the strain and reached an agreement to address it.

Now we are back in a similar moment, only with active negotiations.

I know the public is not privy to what either side is proposing and I understand bargaining has rules, which exist for a reason.

But the budget, review, caps, and board’s financial choices are public. So the community should come to the board with direct questions at June 8th’s meeting.

What is the board’s plan to protect employees from rising healthcare costs?

Is the district budgeting for a real compensation increase, or only a raise that gets eaten by premiums?

Will the board consider additional benefit support, a different cap structure, or better plan design?

How will the district address administrative failures without turning the correction into a cost shift?

What solution is the board willing to own?

LBUSD is not a district scraping by. Our proposed 2026–27 budget describes strong financials, full funding of LCAP goals, healthy reserves in other funds, and a AAA stable rating. Money is never unlimited, but choices exist.

This district prides itself on excellence. But excellence is expensive because good teachers, classified staff, counselors, specialists, and support employees do not stay because a district says nice things about them at board meetings. These people stay when compensation reflects the cost of living, healthcare costs, and the value of the work.

I started with one line in the budget and ended up with a much bigger concern.

Healthcare benefits are complicated, and the review proves that. Rising healthcare costs are real, and the state and national numbers prove that too.

Now the board needs to prove that fixing an administrative problem does not mean lowering support for employees and that a small raise will not be allowed to disappear into healthcare costs.

They need to prove that Laguna Beach Unified is still willing to invest in the people who make the district worth bragging about.

Federal ADA complaint filed over graduation relocation

On June 2, 2026, William Breit and Kathleen Christoff filed a civil-rights complaint against the Laguna Beach Unified School District in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Southern Division) as Case No. 8:26-cv-01418.

The complaint pleads three claims arising from the February 26, 2026 board vote that relocated the 2026 Laguna Beach High School graduation from Guyer Field to the Irvine Bowl: violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. §12132), violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. §794), and violation of California Government Code §11135.

The plaintiffs are described as mobility-disabled invitees of graduating students. The complaint alleges the Irvine Bowl (maximum capacity ~2,600) provides only 11 wheelchair-accessible spaces and 12 companion seats, clustered in three non-dispersed areas, with steep approach and interior circulation, and that the district relocated the ceremony without a pre-vote ADA accessibility evaluation.

It seeks declaratory relief and a temporary restraining order plus preliminary and permanent injunction barring graduation at the Irvine Bowl, and attorneys’ fees, and states a separate U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights complaint had already been filed. Counsel is Dykema Gossett LLP (James S. Azadian, Christine Mardikian, David Ter-Petrosyan).

Arbitrator awards $1.34B in O.C. real estate fraud case

Laguna Beach businessman Mohammad “Mo” Honarkar won a landmark $1.34 billion arbitration award against financier Mahender Makhijani, Continuum Analytics, and affiliated entities. The award includes $652 million in punitive damages and $326 million in compensatory damages following a fraudulent takeover of his Southern California commercial real estate portfolio. 

The dispute centered on the MOM CA Investco joint venture, which took control of Honarkar’s assets, including the historic Hotel Laguna. The arbitrator found the opposing parties liable for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and unlawful business practices. Makhijani’s group allegedly forced Honarkar out of his properties, which later led to Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings and receivership.

Following the arbitration victory, Honarkar’s entities successfully moved to dismiss the bankruptcy cases, clearing the path to return to state court and enforce the massive financial settlement.
The legal developments can be tracked through coverage from the Los Angeles Times or the Daily Journal.

City Council Candidates 2026 Elections

City Council Candidates:

1) Alex Rounaghi – EMAIL XXX – Campaign Website XXX. Turned in nomination papers: XXX (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV)
Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions: Alex Rounaghi

5) Bob Whalen – bwhalen@lagunabeachcity.net – http://www.bobwhalenforlbcouncil.com. Turned in nomination papers: AUGUST 6, 2020 (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV)
Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions: Bob Whalen

City Clerk Candidates:

1) Ann Marie McKay – http://mckay4cityclerk.com. Turned in nomination papers: July 30, 2020 (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV)
Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions: Ann Marie McKay

2) Mariann Tracy – https://marianntracy.com. Turned in nomination papers: AUGUST 5, 2020 (Candidate Statement & Signatures verified by the ROV)
Check out Candidate Community Related Articles and Opinions: Mariann Tracy

Media and General Public Candidate Related Articles and Opinions for the November 3, 2020 Election Below: As Available…

Letter to the Editor – LTE-Dicterow 

Letter to the Editor – LTE-Weiss-Flores

2026 PAC and 501(c)4 Group Campaign Disclosure Forms

Citywide PAC Campaign Contributions Spending 2020 Election:

Laguna Residents First (PAC):

Laguna Residents First – 460 Jan 1 – June 30 2020 – redacted – Click here

 

Laguna Matters (PAC):

 

Liberate Laguna (PAC):

Liberate Laguna – 460 Jan 1 – June 30, 2020 – Click here

Village Laguna (PAC):

Village Laguna – 460 Jan 1 – June 30, 2020 redacted – Click here

Village Laguna PAC Form 496 Oct. 2 2020 (Flores) – Click here

Village Laguna PAC 496 Oct. 2 2020 (Weiss) – Click here

Laguna Beach Police Employee Association  (PAC):

Laguna Beach Police Employee – 460 Jan 1 – June 30, 2020 – Click here

LB Police Assoc. From 496 Oct.5, 2020 (Dicterrow) – Click here

LB Police Assoc. Form 496 Oct 6 (Whalen) – Click here

Laguna Beach Fire Fighters Association (PAC):

Laguna Beach Firefighters Association – 460 Jan 1 – June 30 2020 – Click here

Laguna Public Recreational Facilities Conservancy (LPRFC) (PAC):

LPRFC City Candidate Endorsement – Click here

Laguna Beach City Elections 2026

Candidates’ information and statements Here
PACs and Local Organizations Campaign Support Here
Candidate Financial Support Recap-Here

GET TO KNOW LB CANDIDATES BEFORE YOU VOTE THEM INTO PUBLIC OFFICE TO REPRESENT YOU!

Thank you for being an informed voter. Our city’s health and future depends on it!

Laguna Beach Residents – our local leaders affect our daily lives.

Our elected officials represent US.They represent our values, our lifestyle, our space and place within our city, county, state and country. They become our face and our voice.

A council position is the most important, influential and powerful position in our City. It is critical that we understand the broad range of experience and expertise needed for this position and that we select the right individuals to work together to lead.

As we consider the candidate choices in this 2020 election, it is important that we take the time to learn all we can about each candidate before considering them as a top-level public office representative for our City.

Elected Officials Roles and Responsibilities

The responsibilities of our local elected officials include dictating local laws, policies and budgets. This person(s) will make decisions about our money, ocean, properties, roads, trees, traffic, businesses, safety, and quality of life in everything that we see, live and breathe every day.

As important as this responsibility is, local individuals are often elected by voters who know very little about their personal lives, professional occupation experience, successes or failures, interpersonal skills, visionary and leadership skills, and most important their ability to oversee a complicated city government’s operations, assets, multimillion dollar annual budget and other financial and legal activities.

The folks we elect are game-changers. It is up to us to determine if they are the right fit by evaluating their ability to meet our needs. We must explore their qualifications and history with every bit of scrutiny we would give to anyone holding our destiny in their hands because the consequences are great. Their education, experience and success will move us forward, or quite possible risk us becoming stagnant or going backwards.

We must keep in mind that this isn’t a volunteer position or a social membership. It is a paid position with benefits and the person hired to fill it will be in a decision making capacity that will impact our futures. 

Click here for CC compensation/benefits.

Like many of us, individuals who run for CC will be our friends and/or acquaintances. For some, this poses a loyalty issue. We encourage you dig deep this election and ask yourself objective questions such as;

  • Do I continue the status quo in every election? 
  • Do I take the time to find representatives that have proven their value to the community? 
  • Do I elect individuals that have proven they can make sound and logical decisions on my behalf? 
  • Am I pleased with the position and direction my City is going in?
  • Have I reviewed the incumbents voting records?  Do I agree with them a reasonable percentage of time?
  • Have the incumbents listened to the majority of constituents?
  • Do the incumbents lean towards special interest groups?   
  • Do I elect an individual based upon professional eligibility and proven performance ad success or do I elect only friends I know? 

Sounds so simple, right? It’s not. It’s time consuming and often confusing.

Sadly, local voter numbers are in decline. This is hard to understand since local elections give voters the greatest voice and opportunity to be heard. Our local officials are elected to represent the majority, and when a large fraction chooses not to vote, small groups rule and thus bias is prevalent. This hurts us all.

Get Involved. Local elections take place every year and they have long lasting implications.

By choosing the most experienced, trustworthy and transparent representatives, voters can help create and pass laws reflective of how we feel. Local politicians play a major role in all of the decisions that have a direct influence on our day-to-day lives. Our laws, streets, safety, education, thriving and healthy communities are influenced by their ability to leverage our tax dollars and make good financial decisions for us.

Our local elected officials decide how our public safety is managed. They have input as to how our police officers are trained and ensure that self-policing is in place and monitored. Sometimes local citizens take action to make their voices heard as well as keeping the check and balances needed so the majority of interests do not take over.

Our local politics can shape federal policy. When you elect officials who support the causes you believe in, you become part of making a change at a state level. As states address issues and revise their laws some eventually are adopted at the federal level. The Federal government often waits to see how the new law evolves at the state level to determine its value. They may also nullify state laws if they choose. Our elected officials become our voice at all levels of government.

This election year, we have 5 City Council candidates – 2 are incumbents.  LBCHAT has included individual candidate information and any/all public information documents the may provide you with more insight into each candidate.

Candidate Public Forums:

City Council Candidates:
Alex Rounaghi / Incumbent* SOQ and Disclosure Forms

City Clerk Candidates:
Ann Marie McKay SOQ and Disclosure Forms
Mariann Tracy SOQ and Disclosure Forms

Political Action Committees (PAC): Disclosure Forms
Laguna Residents First (LRF) PAC
Liberate Laguna (LL) PAC
Village Laguna (VL) PAC
LB FIrefighter’s Association PAC
LB Police Employee Association PAC
Laguna Public Recreational Facilities Conservancy (LPRFC)(PAC)

OTHER: Individual Reported 2026 Campaign Contributions
2026 campaign contribution 24 hour report Disclosure Forms

CC Candidate Public Background Records – ELECTION 2026
LBChat provides candidate personal and professional information to assist voters in
vetting individuals seeking public office in Laguna Beach.

LBCHAT will publish all public documents related to public office campaigning including:
candidate qualification statements, campaign finance disclosure forms and related
financial information, websites/podcasts, candidate forums, news articles and personal
and professional public information obtained from candidates and through public
information sources. In addition, a Laguna Beach Police contact report listing: arrests,
restraining orders, repossessions and other violations will be obtained in accordance
with the California Public Record Act. Code# 6253 (CPRA)

_______________

2025 Campaign Disclosures:

LAGUNABEACHCHAT.COM
CHAT stands for City Hall Accountability and Transparency. Our Mission: Laguna Beach
CHAT desires to advance accountability and transparency. We serve residents by
providing them with an open and honest platform to gain knowledge about City officials,
functions and decisions that impact our quality of life and our local community.
We welcome resident/voters opinions and feedback. Please share them with us.
Send to: contact@lagunabeachchat.com.

Thank You. Was this helpful? Please send us your feedback (click here)

Laguna Beach Term Limits On The 2026 Ballot

Information is courtesy of www.nimblegov.org

With 82 percent of Orange County cities having term limits for their council members It’s time for Laguna Beach to adopt Term Limits.

Let’s continue the Term Limits dialogue here in Laguna Beach.  NimbleGov.org is a group of local volunteers who have successfully brought this issue to the 2026 General Election ballot.  This November, we will all get to vote on this important issue.

As you can see from the official summary issued by the City Clerk (See Below) this is exclusively about Laguna Beach, and exclusively about term limits for our city council. This action is local to Laguna Beach. It is independent of any group or party.

This is a simple process:

  1. In the November 3, 2026 election, registered Laguna Beach voters will cast their ballots either for or against term limits.
  2. If the majority votes for term limits, then the term limit clock starts from zero with the  election. (terms served before the 2026 elections do not count toward term limits).

There are term limits for the President, term limits for the Governor, term limits for the Orange County Board of Supervisors, and term limits for the vast majority of cities in Orange County.  Those who want to stay in power longer often spend money to convince you otherwise, but this is a question that you get to answer for yourself.