Author: LBChat

LB City Council Agenda for Tues., Oct. 27, 2026

Posted on

Below is a summary of what’s on the City Council agenda for this coming Tuesday, October 27, 2026.  In this agenda summary, I cover what I think are the more noteworthy items that will appear on the Council agenda.  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 for doing that). 

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. 

There is no study session this week, but like last week, there is an extended closed session. 

The Regular Meeting starts at 5:00 p.m.

I’ll highlight these items on Presentations and on the Consent Calendar:

  • It will be fun to honor Bushard’s Pharmacy’s 80th birthday – what a special place and special family.  And in their most recent year, they had to endure the Promenade’s construction – happy anniversary, Bushard’s!
  • Council will be asked to consider joining the Blue City Network, a recommendation from the Environmental Sustainability Committee (ESC).  More information about what this means is here.
  • An item would approve a contract to do work to maintain the PD’s shooting range behind the Irvine Bowl.
  • There is a complex-sounding but pretty basic item that would make our Muni Code adhere to what Caltrans requires for Caltrans-operated roadways in cities, including how cities can or cannot add infrastructure like parking meters.  This does tangentially relate to our pending action to add paid parking and space demarcations to various locations in South Laguna.

The regular business and public hearings calendars have these items:

  • Something high on everyone’s list – better synchronization of traffic signals through town.  This item specifically authorizes us to submit a regional grant application to OCTA, proposing a project to improve timing across 40 signals on State Routes 1 and 133 at a total cost of about $3.6 million (80% of which is funded by the OCTA grant, 20% from other funds like our gas taxes, or other Measure M funds).
  • Council has understandably asked for more updates and greater transparency about our overall Capital Improvement Plan, and its schedule. This item is the first “quarterly report” of this information – I’d encourage you to take a look at it at your convenience.
  • One item is proposed to be continued to November 10 – that being the approval of Mills Act contracts for two properties (330 Jasmine, 385 Hawthorne).  Remember that the Mills Act is a statewide program that allows cities to cities to incentivize the protection of historic structures through reduced property taxes.  The property taxes saved are supposed to be reinvested (via an approved plan) in the property’s historic preservation.

There are no appeals on Tuesday night’s meeting.  Also, the “Appeals Day” planned for Thursday, November 5th, will not occur – there was only one appeal scheduled, and it made more sense to move that to a normal meeting day.     

Some community notes:

  • Gosh, what a wild few weeks / months with El Nino.  Pick your climate-related event: the PCH crack issue at Crystal Cove, regional coastal erosion / sand movement and loss, swell-related flooding at Main Beach, the King Tides expected between 10/26 and 10/28, and even having to (willingly) send Fire Department personnel and equipment to last weekend’s Norte Fire.  We’re also working on a challenging issue up on Skyline above Canyon Acres – we’ve worked for an extensive period on a nuisance abatement involving a slope failure that involves private property.  If the area is not winterized rapidly and abated properly (notices went out today), we will seek to do the work ourselves.   Remember to check out our El Nino preparedness page, including two planned preparedness events (November 9 and December 1) – use that page to sign up for the events.  The November 9 one will also be livestreamed and recorded. 
  • The El Morro Boo Blast has a new location – Thurston Elementary – because of the ongoing PCH / Caltrans work.
  • Concerts in the Canyon via the Coast Film Festival are this weekend – seems like they will all avoid the wet weather (which has been a nice dampener for at least a bit on fire season).
  • The Promenade’s remaining work gets smaller and smaller.  They’re done with the Forest / Glenneyre section, and now focusing on interior additions (where backordered framing parts come in, we can brick those areas out), as well as the last major piece of the puzzle – the Coast Highway / Promenade side.

$100,000 Walks Into a Laguna Election

Posted on

Courtesy of NimbleGov.org


Laguna caps donations at $500. One company put $100,000 behind three incumbents, and nearly all of it has now been spent.

Dear Readers,
For more than a year we have argued that Laguna Beach elections are not a level playing field. Incumbents run with name recognition and a donor network built over years in office. That money gap is a strong reason we need term limits.

The latest campaign reports show how wide the gap has become.

The Gap Is Nearly Four to One
The candidates’ Form 460 reports, current through October 19, show:
• The three incumbents, Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf and Alex Rounaghi, have taken in $168,262 this year.
• The four challengers who filed full reports have taken in $72,193 combined. (Both totals include loans.)
• Alex Rounaghi alone has raised $78,484, more than all four challengers together.
•
Add the outside money, and about $220,900 has been spent to elect the incumbents, nearly four times the $56,191 the challengers have spent.

$100,000 From a Single Company
On October 1, a new committee reported its first contribution. Its full name says it all: the Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee Supporting Kempf, Rounaghi and Orgill for City Council 2026, Sponsored by Regency Properties LP and Affiliated Entities (FPPC ID 1497439).

Its Form 497 shows a single contribution of $100,000, received September 30 from Regency Properties, L.P., and affiliated entities, owner of the Surf & Sand Resort.

The committee’s Form 497, received by the City Clerk on October 1, 2026, showing the $100,000 contribution from Regency Properties, L.P. Source: City of Laguna Beach campaign disclosure records.

Since then, the committee has spent $99,950 of it, split almost to the penny: $33,316.67 for Rounaghi, $33,316.68 for Kempf and $33,316.65 for Orgill. That is more, per incumbent, than any challenger has spent all year. Police, firefighter and Democratic club PACs added up to about $4,100 more for each incumbent. No outside group has spent anything for a challenger.

The mailers are arriving. When they do, check who paid for them.

How is this possible under a $500 limit? The limit covers only candidates’ own campaigns. Under Citizens United, an independent committee can raise and spend unlimited amounts if it does not coordinate with the candidates. I am not alleging anyone broke that rule. But one large donor can still drown out hundreds of residents giving $100 or $250.

Same Donors, Two Campaigns
The incumbents’ support is also tied to the campaign against term limits. Several donors who gave to all three incumbents also gave to Citizens for Laguna’s Future, the committee formed to defeat Measure E.

No sitting councilmember supports term limits; every challenger at the Village Laguna forum did.

The network funding the incumbents is also funding the effort to keep them in office, and one company has now added six figures.

“Just Vote Them Out” Meets a War Chest
Opponents of term limits say, “If you don’t like them, just vote them out.” That only works on a level field. When incumbents outraise challengers better than two to one and one company spends nearly $100,000 more, a newcomer is running against a war chest. See James Danziger’s case for term limits: https://georgeweiss.substack.com/p/why-i-will-vote-yes-on-term-limits

Measure E does not ban anyone from serving. It allows two consecutive four-year terms, then a two-year break, after which a former member may run again. The break creates open seats where residents compete on ideas instead of money. Twenty-eight of Orange County’s 34 cities have term limits.

Follow the Money Before You Vote
Money only works if voters don’t know where it comes from. The best defense we have is sunlight.

• Look at the filings yourself. They are public records available from the City Clerk.
• When a glossy mailer arrives, check the “paid for by” line. Ask who is behind that committee and what they want from City Hall.
• Forward this Email to every Laguna Beach voter you know.
• Vote yes on Measure E and no to candidates that do not support it.
• Election Day is November 3, and many neighbors are voting now.

Thank you for reading, and vote for candidates that support term limits.

NimbleGov Team

What’s on the LB Council Agenda for Tues., Oct. 13, 2026

Posted on

Below is a summary of what’s on the City Council agenda for this coming Tuesday, October 13, 2026.  In this agenda summary, I cover what I think are the more noteworthy items that will appear on the Council agenda.  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. 

There is no study session this week, but there is an extended closed session.  

This meeting, then, starts at 5:00 p.m.

I’ll highlight these items on the Consent Calendar:

  • Dedication of the soon-to-be-restored Seagrave Fire Engine (dating to 1931) for retired captain Eugene “Diz” D’Isabella – Diz and family and friends may be present for the dedication, so this should be a nice presentation.  The Seagrave itself is not yet restored, but it’s coming along.  Our thanks to all who donated to its restoration and to those who encouraged the restoration.
  • An item about changing Title 18 of our code (which relates to beaches and parks) to require certain safety equipment (like helmets, knee and elbow pads) at the skate park and related facilities. 
  • An item that appropriates funds from the Wildfire Mitigation and Fire Safety allocations for a couple of things, as recommended by the City’s ad hoc committee on fire safety (Kempf and Whalen) – improved extrication equipment to ensure we can safely get folks out of newer, stronger cars; software and shelter supplies for the EOC and disasters; and an assignment of funds for longer maintenance of the outdoor warning system.

That’s what’s on the consent calendar.  The regular business calendar has these items:

  • An appropriation from the Disaster Contingency Reserve for consultant services relating to keeping an ER/Emergency Department in South Laguna.  This follows an RFQ process for consultant services that didn’t get a lot of responses, though a lot of firms looked at it.  Since then, the City Attorney and I have worked with the ad hoc committee to revisit the needs, with a focus on legal and regulatory issues.  As such, the item sets aside up to $500K for special services that will assist the City in keeping hospital services in town.  I am recommending use of the Disaster Contingency because the closure issue has life-safety implications – and it also provides smart direction to restore the amount reduced to the Reserve over up to 3 budget cycles.  This agenda item also includes a letter that Council Members Rounaghi and Whalen sent to the CA Attorney General in late September. 
  • A study session-ish item about the right surface material if we are to repair the Boardwalk at Main Beach.  The Planning Commission suggested Douglas Fir, which is fine, but we felt it important to have more awareness of the issue and some Council input before going forward with additional design work.  No changes are proposed for the width, length, curvature, or nature of the Boardwalk – just a discussion of the best surface material. 
  • We’re returning to the Council with an item to in part meet the State’s EV mandates for municipal vehicles – this is the infrastructure / charging station side of that, and includes off-setting rebates and a cost-benefit analysis done by a 3rd party.
  • There’s a ratification of yet another Declaration of Local Emergency, which I made today due to impacts starting yesterday of the remnants of Hurricane Rachel.  The State – through CalOES – asks that we declare separate emergencies for each storm by name.  A bit frustrating. 

There are no appeals on Tuesday night’s meeting.  We did hear word today (Friday) that Pacific Edge has withdrawn its application to place construction worker parking in the lot near Laguna Terrace, due in large part to community concerns from Laguna Terrace residents.  Therefore, an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of that application – tentatively set for November 5, 2026 – will not be necessary.  Pacific Edge told us in the letter that it will seek out other options.   

A couple of community notes:

  • I sent out an email earlier today (Friday) about Hurricane Rachel issues and preparations.  Speaking of that, we have an El Nino Preparedness Page and a Workshop scheduled for Monday, October 12, 2026 – information is here.   Suffice it to say that this has been a rough year, and staying ahead of the weather and climate change hasn’t been easy or simple. With that earthquake in Panama this morning, I was curious as to what else could befall us.  I’ll go over more of what we’ve been working on re: El Nino preparedness during my always-scintillating City Manager’s comments on Tuesday night. 
  • The current work on the Promenade includes finishing up the new crosswalk texture (brick) at Forest and Glenneyre – I know that this is a hassle, but most of the work is night work.  Today, as the contractor was buttoning up the location in the a.m., the timing was such that the flooding on Coast Highway was also hitting.  Let me apologize for that for anyone stuck in traffic – we’ve already moved to adjust that timing.  And there’s not much more work to be done. Also, a few more grates trickle in from backorder, and those are installed as they come in (with the commensurate removal of some of the more dusty DG).  We’re still struggling getting permits off of desks at Caltrans (for the PCH side), and awaiting full power that would allow the fountain to operate (and more lighting).  Argh.

As always, thanks for reading this far.

The Weiss Report Voter Guide for City Council

Posted on

Courtesy of The Weiss Report
*Views Expressed in this article are of the source and not completely the views of LBChat.com.

Three seats, three candidates, and why none of the incumbents should get your vote.

Dear Readers,

Mail-in ballots are arriving. Nine candidates are running for three City Council seats, including all three incumbents: Mayor Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf and Alex Rounaghi.

I have attended the first three major forums and reviewed the transcripts. Village Laguna’s on August 31, the Greater Laguna Beach GOPs on September 23, and the Laguna Canyon Conservancy’s on September 28. See my Substack archive for my reporting on them. I have also gone through the candidates’ statements and websites, and I have looked at the incumbents’ records, much of it from the dais beside them. I am supporting Joy Berry, Laura Parisi and Ashley Cintas.

Here is Why: They are three different people with divergent backgrounds, and they don’t agree on everything. You will see that below. But each of them answered the question that matters: when residents and City Hall want different things, who will you serve?

Where do they stand together

Across three forums, these three were consistent on the issues residents raise most often:

· Term limits. All three support Measure E.

· Spending before taxes. All three named outside consultants as a first cut. All three oppose a sales tax increase, a tax on restaurant and bar customers, and a business license tax on gross receipts.

· No to taxpayer-built parking structures downtown, behind the police station, or on the library site.

· No general fund money to build housing. All three said the City’s assistance for the Neighborhood Congregational Church project went beyond what was needed. They also said the City should be clear about what the state actually requires versus what is a Council policy choice.

· Openness. All three would release the Downtown Specific Plan environmental report and require staff reports to present options rather than a single recommendation.

· Open space. All three oppose glyphosate in our open spaces and support permanently protecting the City’s 2,000-plus acres of open space by enrolling them in the Nature Reserve of Orange County.

· Fewer 5-0 votes. Each said the Council needs members willing to ask tough questions in public and vote no when they disagree.

Joy Berry: the rules apply to everyone

Joy has lived in Laguna for almost 30 years. She was a hotel development manager for Marriott, where she says she built about 40 hotels from the ground up, and she worked on the Montage Laguna Beach project. She later became chief operating officer of a global hotel sales company. She now runs a small lodging business in Carmel. She founded the Laguna Beach Coalition for Environmental Protection and was vice president of Village Laguna.

Her campaign rests on one idea: “one set of rules that apply to everyone, no matter who you know or how much money you have.” She has acted on it. When the Council approved a home on a hillside steeper than the General Plan’s 45% limit, her coalition sued, and the trial court agreed with them. The City has appealed. Her concern is the precedent: if the City can measure a slope from side to side instead of top to bottom, every hillside in town becomes buildable.

She is the sharpest critic of the City marketing to more visitors. She would redirect hotel-tax revenue to public safety, trash pickup, and enforcement. Most of that revenue goes into the General Fund to be spent, however the Council decides. She also wants Laguna to join with other coastal cities in pressing Sacramento and the Coastal Commission. Her developer’s eye for detail came through on two issues:

· Promenade bids. She said any contractor prices projects line by line, and the City should have done the same due diligence.

· The $8 million land trust loan. “In the real world, you get a deed of trust when you loan money.” The City may hold one, but she said it doesn’t appear in the public record, and residents were never shown how $8 million of their money is secured.

Joy brings something the Council lacks: someone who understands development from the inside and will not be talked into exceptions.

Caveat: One can reason that ANYONE with a developer background should not be on the City Council. That’s a reasonable view, but in Joy’s case I believe she will always put residents first.

Laura Parisi: the financial expert who has been shut out

Laura has been our elected City Treasurer since 1999 and is a CPA. Her career began at a large Chicago accounting firm. She sponsored SB 742, state legislation on transparency in city accounting, which is now law.

She is not running because she is tired of being Treasurer. She is running because, in her words, the Council and management have made it “increasingly difficult” to do the job voters elected her to do. This summer she found that County payments for assessment-district bonds had been received but did not appear in the City’s cash records. She reported it in writing in July and again in August. She says she still has not received an answer.

Her priorities are what you would expect from someone who has watched the City’s books for 27 years:

· Monthly revenue and expense reports to the Council.

· A professional audit committee.

· Staffing based on department audits and results.

· No new taxes or bonds to cover operating deficits.

· Safety and infrastructure first.

On contracts, she would start at the request for proposals, requiring line items to be broken out so the public can understand them. City cash and investments fell from $165 million in July 2025 to $146.6 million in July 2026. Laura is the best candidate to tell us why.

Full disclosure: I endorsed Laura earlier this year, we desperately need someone with her financial skills.

Caveat: Despite sitting in on City Council meetings for 25 plus years, she doesn’t seem to have a solid grasp of many other issues. However she is bright enough to master this shortcoming quickly, and I believe will put residents first.

Ashley Cintas: plans, timelines, and results

Ashley owns Oto Sushi downtown, which employs more than 40 people. She is a UCLA graduate and a serial entrepreneur: she co-founded a consumer-products company with her twin sister and later founded City Shoppe, an online marketplace for independent retailers. Before that, she spent years in hospitality management, including work with Ace Hotel brands across the country.

Her message is accountability. At every forum she asked the same questions of every project: What’s the plan? Who owns it? When will it be done? What does it cost? And did it work? She calls the current Council reactive, and she wants:

· Monthly budget-to-actual reports.

· A 5-, 10- and 15-year funding plan for pensions, South Laguna, insurance, and capital projects.

· A real-world stress test of our wildfire evacuation plans before a crisis finds bottlenecks for us.

As a downtown business owner, she has a practical answer to the City’s revenue problem: fill our empty storefronts before asking residents to pay more. Speeding up permitting and design review would help. On tourism, she wants current data, noting the City still relies on numbers that are about 20 years old. With that data, she would pursue longer-staying visitors rather than more day-trippers. And on the land trust loan, she was blunt: it was “not fiscally responsible.”

Readers should know that Ashley sits on the board of Visit Laguna Beach, the tourism marketing organization. She has not hidden from the issue. At the GOP forum she said she does not approve of the Council’s 10-year, non-cancelable agreement with Visit Laguna, and her approach to tourism is about measuring the cost to residents, not attracting more visitors. Still, I have criticized Mayor Orgill for sitting on Visit Laguna’s board while voting on its contract, and I hold Ashley to the same standard. If she is elected, she should step off the board or recuse herself on Visit Laguna matters, and I have asked her to say so publicly.

Ashley is newer to Laguna than the others, and she says so. What she brings is the operating discipline of someone who has to make payroll every two weeks.

Caveat: As a business owner and a board member of Visit Laguna will this candidate do what’s best for the residents of Laguna Beach, or will she be “business first.” Can she balance the two? I think she can.

Where they differ

These three are not a slate that votes in lockstep, and that is the point. A few honest differences:

· St. Catherine’s. Laura and Ashley want the community center residents were promised when the City paid $23 million for it. Joy would ask the private sector for proposals rather than let it sit underused at taxpayer expense.

· The marine protected area. Joy and Ashley support extending the no-take zone to the city limits. Laura thinks the current one is doing its job.

· The Promenade. Joy would not have built it. Laura and Ashley liked the idea but not the planning, the budget, or the result.

Three independent voices who sometimes disagree is exactly what a 5-0 Council needs.

No to the Incumbents: They have driven our city into a financial ditch, so it makes sense to hire new drivers.

I served with all three incumbents, and I respect the hours the job takes. They deserve credit for fire preparedness, where the City has invested well.

But a Council is judged by how it handles money, how it makes decisions, and to whom it listens. On all three, the record of the past four years is the strongest argument for change. They have driven our city into a financial ditch so let’s hire new drivers.

The budget is balanced on paper only. For three straight years, the Council has balanced the General Fund by moving money out of the Capital Improvement Fund, which is meant for fire stations, City Hall, parks, and beach accessways. The transfers were $2.86 million in FY 2024-25, about $1.7 million in FY 2025-26 and $2.29 million this year. This year’s budget moves $7.19 million out of that fund in all, including $3.6 million to cover a deficit in the insurance and benefits fund. The City’s own forecast shows operating deficits returning in FY 2027-28, and the unfunded pension liability grew from about $52 million in 2021 to about $96 million in 2025. All three incumbents voted for these budgets.

The big decisions are made out of public view. Again and again, two-member committees shaped major projects in private and brought finished plans to the full Council:

· The Promenade: Orgill and Kempf. Midnight tree removals didn’t sit well with the public and by most measures the design of the Promenade does not reflect the spirit of Laguna. (and then there’s the statuary, by a non-Laguna artist)

· The artists’ land trust: Rounaghi and Orgill. Its $8 million loan came out of the Vehicle Replacement Fund, the account that replaces police cars and fire engines.

· Taking over Laguna Canyon Road: Rounaghi and Bob Whalen. After spending over 4 million since 2012 the LCR undergrounding project has made little progress.

· The $84.9 million parking plan: Kempf and Whalen. The plan included a taxpayer-funded structure on church property.

· Climate Action and Sustainability Plan: In 2021 the Council unanimously approved the adoption of a plan at the cost of 400 thousand dollars.

· Main Library Should be a Parking Structure: Sue Kempf – Sue denies this, but the overwhelming evidence points to an effort to move the library to make way for a parking structure.

The City’s own news release says the 10-year Visit Laguna agreement was “crafted and negotiated in large part through the efforts of” Orgill, who sits on Visit Laguna’s board. It has no termination clause for non-performance. On September 22, eighteen days after the firefighters’ union endorsed all three incumbents, they approved a new police contract on the consent calendar, 5-0 and without discussion. Staff said some of its terms “could not be fully costed.”

The Promenade is the pattern in one project. Residents were told it would cost about $2.8 million. The night the Council approved a $7.2 million budget, it moved $4.4 million from other capital projects to pay for it. No council member questioned the bid’s $10,000-per-chair line item before voting. That same night, the Council turned down 873 residents who had petitioned for an alternative plan. Kempf now says the project is $500,000 under budget, a figure that counts only the construction contract and its contingency.

Residents are left out.

· Eagle Rock Way. Mayor Orgill called up a disputed South Laguna variance for Council review, which told neighbors they would get a hearing. On September 22, he withdrew it before the hearing began, after the deadline for residents to file their own appeal had passed.

· The Nature Reserve study. In 2023 the Council voted to study enrolling our open space in the Nature Reserve. Nothing came back for 32 months, and the findings are now scheduled for December 8, a month after the election.

· The Dupuis investigation report. In November 2023, Kempf and Rounaghi joined Whalen in a 3-2 vote to keep it from the public, after residents had paid roughly $450,000 for the former City Manager’s severance settlement.

· The Blue Cottage. In July 2025, Kempf and Rounaghi voted to let a 1914 cottage be demolished for seven parking spaces.

Election-year conversions. At the GOP forum, all three incumbents said they now oppose spending $141 million to underground Laguna Canyon Road, after pursuing it for years. They also distanced themselves from height increases in the Downtown Specific Plan they championed, and from the façade grants they approved last year. At its June study session, the Council directed staff to draft a business license tax focused on bars and restaurants. Asked about the $13 million church parking structure, Kempf said, “I don’t even remember the vote.” Asked whether the City holds a deed of trust on its $8 million land trust loan, Rounaghi said he didn’t have the answer. Orgill said, “I thought we did.” All incumbents oppose term limits on the ballot as Measure E.

The pattern shows a Council that answers first to City Hall and its allies, and to residents mainly in election years.

Question for voters

The incumbents have spent this campaign saying the right things about consultants, staffing, taxes and listening. Much of it is new, and it arrived in an election year. You can decide for yourself whether that is a change of heart or a change of season.

I am voting for Joy Berry, Laura Parisi and Ashley Cintas. I am also voting yes on Measure E.

Thank you for reading, and as always, I welcome your thoughts and any corrections.

George Weiss

Sources: Village Laguna City Council candidates forum, Aug. 31, 2026; Greater Laguna Beach GOP City Council candidates forum, Sept. 23, 2026 (Parts 1 and 2); Laguna Canyon Conservancy candidates forum, Sept. 28, 2026; official candidate statements, City of Laguna Beach, November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election; joy4laguna.com; ashleyforlaguna.com; Daily Bruin, “UCLA grad solves yoga dilemma with her business,” Jan. 30, 2014; Best of Laguna Beach, “New OTO Sushi to open late October,” Sept. 17, 2024; City Treasurer’s monthly reports, July 2025 and July 2026; City of Laguna Beach FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget; City Council staff reports, Dec. 9, 2025 and Jan. 27, 2026 (Community Land Trust loan); City of Laguna Beach news release on the Visit Laguna Beach agreement, November 2024; City Council Minutes Recap, Sept. 22, 2026 (police contract; Eagle Rock Way call-up); City Council meeting recap, Nov. 21, 2023, Item 10, and staff report, Aug. 4, 2026, Item 13; City Council meeting, Jan. 13, 2026 (Promenade contract award); City Council study session, June 9, 2026; Voice of OC, “Laguna Beach Keeps Hostile Workplace Investigation Secret,” November 2023; Laguna Beach Coalition for Environmental Protection (lbcep.com). Earlier posts on this Substack: “Four Promises, One Pattern,” “An Appeal With No Hearing,” “What the Incumbents Told the Canyon Forum,” “Across the Table,” and “Whom Do They Serve?”

The Mayor Who Forgot What He Said

Posted on

Courtesy of The Weiss Report

He argued for a 10-year deal, then said he pushed for five. He proposed “multi stories” downtown, then called it disinformation.

Dear Readers,

I asked Claude Ai to compile statements made by the Incumbents at City Council meetings during the last few years of service. The report has over 1,000 entries. I’d describe them as a sample of what the incumbents said on the record, chosen to show patterns, and not as a list of their worst moments.

That what the picks actually are. Some are flat contradictions. Others are remarks that show how a member thinks about residents, money or accountability. A few are simply odd things to say from the dais, in their own words. Take a look at the video links and see for yourself.

Every quote below comes from the City’s own meeting videos. Each “Watch” link opens the video at the moment the statement was made, so you can hear it for yourself.

Term Limits: Good for Sacramento, Not for Laguna

Fine for Washington and Sacramento, but not for Laguna.

At the Advocates for Laguna Residents forum (September 15 2026), asked about Measure E, he said: “I support term limits nationally and for the state, but I don’t really see it necessary for the community.” Asked why, he pointed to the money from super PACs at the state and national level, and said “I’m not raising all that much money.”

The record says otherwise. On September 30, the owner of the Surf & Sand gave $100,000 to a committee backing Orgill, Kempf and Rounaghi together. That is exactly the kind of outside money he says makes term limits necessary everywhere else. He also received $5,000 from 15 donors outside Laguna Beach. That’s about 18% of the $28,400 in itemized contributions.

Note: As the Founder of Visit Laguna Orgill has established a good working relationship with the Surf and Sand. He met with executives of the MOM Group there just days after recieving a large check and hired their GM to serve as the head of Visit Laguna.

What He Said, and What the Record Shows

1. Contradiction: “I pushed for a five-year term.”

Oct. 28, 2025: “I pushed for a five-year term in June. The council majority decided to go with the 10.”

At the June 10, 2025 meeting he argued for the 10-year term: “the 10 years is because there’s artist housing issues.” Answering Whalen’s concern about a long commitment, he said: “I used to own a lot of commercial real estate and I did 20-year leases all day long.”

Watch: June 10 · Watch: June 10, leases · Watch: Oct. 28

2. Contradiction: “No plan for a third story downtown.”

April 28, 2026: He complained of “disinformation” and “vileness” online, and per the record’s summary told residents there is no plan for a third story downtown, only an EIR.

Dec. 12, 2023, when Phase II began: “I think that we should probably consider multi stories throughout the downtown.”

Watch: April 2026 · Watch: Dec. 2023

3. Left residents out of the Promenade focus groups.

April 23, 2024, after you pressed him: “I’ve errored… I did not have intentions to mislead the public and I apologize if there was any misperception.” He blamed his private-sector habits.

Watch the clip

4. Measure height from the flood plain, not the ground.

Oct. 28, 2025: “it might be worth looking at measuring the height from the flood plane, the 100-year flood plane.” In the Arts District floodplain, that means taller buildings at the mouth of the canyon. He raised the same idea in December 2023.

Watch the clip

5. The Dupuis settlement as a business decision.

Nov. 7, 2023: “mine was simple and it was really based on my life’s experience being in business, it was financial… I just truly thought that it would be best for the city to cut bait and move forward.” This was about roughly $440,000 in public money and a report the public never saw.

Watch the clip

6. A $30 million figure with no source.

June 9, 2026: “$30 million is probably coming out of our budget that is directly related to day trippers.” He gave no source, and “probably” is doing a lot of work.

Watch the clip

7. Blaming COVID for the Promenade’s retail problems.

Feb. 4, 2025: “we’re making assumptions that the drop in retail sales is a direct result of the promenade, but what’s affected retail more than anything is just the fact that we went through COVID.” By then COVID had been over for some time, and merchants were still complaining.

Watch the clip

8. “Nefarious accusations.”

April 28, 2026, closing the city charter hearing: “I get a little bit disappointed when I hear all these nefarious accusations thrown at us, but I’ll get over it.” Residents raised questions about a charter, and the Mayor treated them as attacks.

Watch the clip

9. “Less restrictions the better.”

Feb. 27, 2024, on minimum standards for single-room-occupancy housing: “closets, each unit shall have a closet space of what, 72 cubic feet, that’s kind of stuff I just don’t think that we need… less restrictions the better.”

Watch the clip

10. “Coney Island.”

May 14, 2024: “I’m a free market guy myself… but cities do have the ability to decide what they want to be… you can turn into Coney Island.” This is from a member who ran development for Mo Honarkar.

Watch the clip

Why This Matters for Measure E

Put these statements beside those of the other two incumbents and a pattern appears. Positions shift when the election gets close. Promises from one meeting are forgotten by the next. Members talk past residents who object. And all three oppose the one reform that would guarantee new people a turn at the table.

Each gives a different reason. Orgill likes term limits everywhere except here. Kempf says elections are enough, while seeking 12 years. Rounaghi wanted term limits for committees, but not for himself.

At the GOP forum, the moderator noted that 28 of 34 Orange County cities have term limits. Measure E would bring Laguna in line: two consecutive four-year terms, then a two-year break before running again. Nobody is barred for life, and every Council member would still have to win at the ballot box.

Elections are a check. Term limits make sure the check gets cashed. Vote yes on Measure E.

Disclosure: I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot, and I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas and Laura Parisi.

$100K PAC Backs Laguna Beach Council Incumbents

Posted on

by Alicia Venter
Courtesy of the Laguna Beach Independent

On Sept. 30, Regency Properties, L.P. made a single contribution of $100,000 to an Independent Expenditure Committee, a type of Super PAC, specifically created to support three candidates for Laguna Beach City Council: incumbents Sue Kempf, Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi.


The incumbents do not have control over these funds, which are being used to fund various reelection efforts.

On Oct. 2 — just three days before early voting began — the committee spent approximately $20,488 per candidate, or a total of $61,465 of the initial $100,000, to support the three candidates, according to FFPC Form 496 and FPPC Form 497, official campaign finance disclosure forms required by the California Fair Political Practices Commission.

For each candidate, the around $20,000 that has been spent on the reelection efforts has been used on:

  • consulting ($3,333)

  • mailers ($7,420)

  • newspaper and digital ads ($3,764)

  • state mailers ($5,970)

“Like other residents, I was shocked when I read the filings from the City Clerk’s automated email earlier this week about the independent expenditure,” Rounaghi said in a statement to the Indy. “As I stated at Tuesday’s forum, I was not aware of, did not ask for, and do not approve of or welcome this expenditure. I don’t know why a major company would spend this kind of money on a small-town Council race. If this were a donation, I would give it back, but I have no control over this independent expenditure. What I can control is running a resident-focused campaign on the important issues facing our town.

Regency Properties is the legal business entity that owns the Surf & Sand Resort, a luxury oceanfront hotel located at 1555 S. Coast Highway in Laguna Beach.The entity is a subsidiary of JC Resorts, a Southern California-based hospitality management group that owns and operates several prominent regional hotel and golf properties. As of press time, Regency Properties has not responded to a request for comment.

The Laguna Beach City Council controls local zoning laws, coastal developments permits, noise ordinances, traffic management and occupancy taxes related to hotels and real estate properties.

Laguna Beach city ordinances enforce strict limits on how much an individual or entity can donate directly to a candidate’s campaign account. Following a November 2024 update, the maximum direct contribution limit is $500 per individual donor. Candidates have full control over these direct campaign accounts and dictate how the funds are used.

Under state and federal law, independent expenditure committees can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money for supporting election campaigns, completely bypassing the local $500 contribution limit. The committees are legally prohibited from coordinating with or giving money directly to a candidate’s campaign.

For an independent expenditure committee to legally accept and spend unlimited funds, there must be strict non-coordination between the committee and the candidates.

The committee operates entirely on its own to fund the independent mailers, digital ads and consulting it is providing to the reelection efforts.

Council candidate Ashley Cintas held a press conference on Oct. 8 in response to the $100,000 contribution. In a statement to the Indy, she stated that “Laguna Beach is not Sacramento or Washington, D.C.” and political spending of this magnitude requires “extraordinary transparency.”

“Independent expenditures are governed differently, and I am not alleging that this contribution is illegal or that there was improper coordination,” the statement said. “But simply saying something is legal does not answer whether it is appropriate. This is a city of roughly 22,000 people with a five-member City Council. One committee is now spending to support three of those five seats.”

“If the incumbents believe this amount of outside spending is inappropriate for a Laguna Beach election, they can say so publicly,” she added. “They can disavow it and ask the committee to stop spending on their behalf. They cannot return money they never received, but they can make clear whether they believe this should become the new standard for local elections.”

Nine candidates are vying for three open seats on the city council this November: Sue Kempf, Rounaghi, Ashley Cintas, Laura Parisi, Mark Orgill, Nick Aronoff, Edward Bayuk, Joy Berry, Alex Rounaghi and Karen Martin. Election Day is Nov. 3, and early voting began Oct. 5. The last day to register to vote online is Oct. 19.

Kempf and Orgill did not respond to a request for comment by press time.

Nextdoor: Innocuous or Nuisance?

Posted on

by MJ Abraham
Courtesy of the Laguna Beach Independent

I have been a participant in the Nextdoor Laguna Beach community social media platform since it was introduced to our city more than a dozen years ago. I was impressed that one of our city leaders, Sue Kempf, was instrumental in bringing Nextdoor to Laguna Beach and continues to serve as a LEAD for the site today.

Nextdoor was introduced in Laguna Beach with a worthwhile goal: to improve communication, neighborhood connections, emergency preparedness and community engagement. In 2013, the City Council approved a recommendation from the Emergency Disaster Preparedness Committee to promote Nextdoor as a neighborhood-based social networking platform.

The concept was simple: provide residents with a free way to share information, report issues, connect with neighbors and become more aware of what was happening in their community.

At least, that was the intention. In its infancy, Nextdoor appeared to be well received by residents and city leaders. But over time, participation has grown, discussions have expanded beyond our immediate neighborhoods, and people from outside Laguna Beach—and even outside California—can weigh in on local conversations.

What was once a neighborhood communication tool can now feel much broader, more contentious and, at times, overwhelming.

There are also questions about privacy and moderation. Nextdoor relies on automated systems, user reporting and volunteer neighborhood moderators to enforce community guidelines. Residents can become LEADS or monitors and help oversee communications within designated neighborhoods. On the surface, this seems reasonable. But does asking local residents to help police their neighbors’ communications create problems of its own?

Today, Nextdoor can sometimes feel less like the community-building resource it was intended to be and more like another arena for conflict. What began as an opportunity to increase information, connection and awareness may also have come with a cost—in time, privacy, neighborly relationships and peace of mind.

Has Nextdoor accomplished what it was intended to accomplish? Has the City ever surveyed residents to determine whether they consider the program valuable? Has the platform strengthened relationships between neighbors—or, in some cases, pitted neighbors against one another? Has it become a place where people feel free to criticize, ridicule or bully others over their thoughts, feelings and opinions? And has it contributed to the larger political and social divisions we see in and beyond Laguna Beach?

We now hear city leaders, including Council Member Sue Kempf, making critical comments about Nextdoor, including referring to some discussions as “noise” and accusing people of bullying. At the same time, residents on different sides of community issues use Nextdoor to express concerns while sometimes criticizing the platform and its users.

So what exactly are we seeing?

Is public criticism simply “noise”? Is it bullying? Or can it also be an indication that residents are frustrated, concerned and trying to communicate with their community and city leaders on issues critical to them?

With an election year upon us, perhaps this is an opportunity to rethink how we use this resource. Rather than allowing Nextdoor to become another place for division and personal attacks, could it become a more constructive forum for civic engagement?  Could residents use it to share information, ask questions, hear different perspectives and hold elected leaders accountable in a respectful and informed way?  Could the site monitors stay true to the task they agreed to?

Nextdoor was introduced to Laguna Beach with the goal of bringing neighbors closer together. More than a decade later, perhaps it is time to take an honest look at whether it is still accomplishing that goal—and whether we can make better use of it for the greater good of our community.

Is Nextdoor Laguna Beach innocuous or a nuisance? Is our town connecting—or disconnecting—with one another? And during an election year, can we turn this resource into a more constructive place for civic dialogue, informed discussion and community engagement?

Protecting Their Way of Life, Not Yours

Posted on

The mailer defends the status quo. For residents, that means more traffic, less parking, bigger houses and a City running out of money.
Coutesy of The Weiss Report

Dear Readers,

A friend sent me this mailer a couple of days ago, and my first reaction was to laugh out loud.

Term limits are about as ordinary as local government gets. Twenty-eight of Orange County’s 34 cities have them, and so do the County Board of Supervisors and the State Legislature. None of those places has lost their way of life.

Measure E is not radical either. It allows two consecutive four-year terms, then a two-year break, after which a former councilmember can run again. It does not apply to anyone now sitting on the Council. Nobody’s right to choose “experienced, effective leaders” is stripped away; an experienced leader simply has to sit out two years. And there is nothing sneaky about a measure that 2,400 resident voters signed to qualify for the ballot. A ballot every voter sees.

So why try to scare voters? Because the “way of life” the mailer is defending isn’t yours. It’s the arrangement that keeps the same people in charge at City Hall.

Who is paying for this?

Look at the money. The elite insiders who fund the three incumbents, Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf and Alex Rounaghi, overlap with the donors funding the campaign against Measure E. Joe Hanauer, Patrick Quilter, Christopher Quilter and Cody Engle gave to all three incumbents and also to Citizens for Laguna’s Future, the committee formed to defeat it.

This chart shows what the candidates raised from July 1 to September 19, the most recent reporting period.

Then $100,000 walked into the room. On September 30, an independent expenditure committee backing Kempf, Rounaghi, and Orgill received a single $100,000 check from Regency Properties, L.P.—the parent entity of the oceanfront Surf & Sand Resort.

That single corporate check is more than double what all six challengers have raised combined.

In corporate hospitality, a $100,000 political investment isn’t philanthropy; it’s business strategy. What does a luxury resort operator need from City Hall? First, ironclad protection against any proposed increase to the hotel bed tax (TOT), which generates millions for municipal coffers but makes rooms more expensive. Second, a pliant council on coastal land-use decisions. City Manager Dave Kiff already let slip that a private party has expressed interest in acquiring the St. Catherine’s parcel—a property residents were promised would become a community recreation center. But that deal only works if the City first secures the adjacent Ruby’s site for Coast Highway access. I don’t know who that buyer is.

Whether the objective is shielding hotel tax rates or positioning for prime South Coast Highway real estate, follow the money: when an outside corporate owner drops six figures into a council race, everyone wins except the residents, and the community recreation center the City Council promised them.

Above is the form that shows Regency as the sponsor of the Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee in support of the three incumbent candidates.

Back to Term Limits: Not one sitting councilmember supports term limits. All six challengers do. The same network funding the incumbents is funding the effort to make sure incumbents never have to step aside. Using “Our Way of Life” as a slogan makes a simple election reform sound like an attack on our religion or culture. It isn’t. Term limits will just let more residents serve.

What has actually happened to our way of life

If you want to know what is threatening Laguna’s way of life, look at what residents have lived through under this Council. Summer tourism has grown sharply over the last two years. One resident told me it took him an hour to drive from Wesley Drive to Crown Valley on a busy summer weekend. I once wrote a satirical piece claiming the Council had passed an ordinance barring residents from downtown on weekends so tourists could have it to themselves. Several people contacted me to ask if it was true. It may as well be.

Small things count: The lot at the former Laguna Drugs site, one of the few with spaces reserved for residents, was recently converted to private parking that now charges $20 a day. Now there is no parking downtown reserved for residents with or without parking stickers. A trip to Heisler Park or the Laguna Art Museum now means circling the block and hoping. It’s the little things that add up to degrade residents’ quality of life.

In our neighborhoods, the Council has been willing to allow building on steep hillsides, a move held back for now only by a lawsuit brought by candidate Joy Berry and her neighbors. Council has allowed building over watercourses and in very high fire hazard severity zones.

New luxury homes, like the one near my house pictured below, will bring in major property tax revenue. That revenue feeds City Hall’s growing payroll, and every privately owned hillside that gets built out is a money-making opportunity for a circle of insiders whose loyalty is to the current political machine.

This house on the 700 block of Bluebird will be 5,000 sq ft. It’s not neighborhood compatible and will also sport an ADU that will be 800 or more sq., yet to be built. The houses within 300 feet are much smaller, like mine at 1,200 sq. ft.

What is waiting until after the election

The people behind this slogan, and their allies on the Council, have plans that they are holding until the votes are counted.

If the incumbents keep their seats, here is what to expect:

  • Ocean Avenue’s trees. An arborist report more than 600 pages long claims most of the trees are sick, and the Downtown Action Plan calls for “modernizing” the street. The Council quietly tabled the project as the election season began. We have seen this before on Forest Avenue.
  • A taller, denser downtown. The proposed Downtown Specific Plan update would allow commercial buildings of 24 to 36 feet across more of downtown, up to 87 units per acre, with as little as half a parking space per unit. The Council says this is about housing, but landlords won’t build affordable units over their stores. The logical result is expensive condominiums, many sold to out-of-town buyers and rented out as short-term lodging.
  • A different Laguna Canyon. Alex Rounaghi and former Mayor Bob Whalen have tried, without success, to sell residents on the “Protect and Connect” plans. Alex, like the other incumbents, now says he no longer supports spending $141 million to underground the utilities along Laguna Canyon Road, but he has not disavowed the plan’s other elements: a wider roadway, bike and walking paths, and four new stoplights. Alex has worked for housing developers, and that background shows.
  • A rewritten Canyon Specific Plan. Once the incumbents don’t have to face voters for another four years, expect Protect and Connect to return, along with a revision of the Canyon Specific Plan that opens the canyon to new residential and commercial development, just as the Council did downtown. In 20 years, Laguna Canyon won’t be rural or rustic.

This is not hyperbole. If the incumbents who oppose term limits keep their seats, our town will be unrecognizable in 20 years, but it will be more vibrant, busy, and noisy.

The money is running out

On the financial side, the Council has driven the City into a ditch. City positions have grown from about 273 to 359, and wages have risen 84% in a decade. The General Fund has been “balanced” three years running only by drawing on capital funds, $7.19 million this year. City cash fell from $165 million to $146.6 million in a single year, and the City’s own forecast shows deficits starting in FY 2027-28. The Council even lent $8 million from the Vehicle Replacement Fund to buy artist live-work properties.

Without a staffing cut of 10 to 20%, a major tax increase, or both, the outlook is bleak. I have written about this many times, and the numbers are the City’s own. Meanwhile, Mayor Orgill, in the candidate forums, says our finances are fine. That is like saying the sun is shining while it’s raining.

Promises and performance

Mr. Orgill’s answer to every problem is to talk things over with residents, staff or other council members. He believes that if he talks long enough, we will come to see his side of the story and agree with him. I supported his first run for Council and sat beside him on the dais for two years, and my conclusion is that he is not what he seems to be, a humble, “aw shucks” kind of guy that says he’s in your corner. At heart he is a developer and a storyteller.

There is more: A former senior City building official told me Mayor Orgill was as responsible as Mo Honarkar for the permitting problems that kept the Hotel Laguna project from moving forward years ago.

And Mr. Orgill does not always keep his word: just over two weeks ago he dropped, at the last minute, an appeal he had promised Ann Christoph and the South Laguna Civic Association he would pursue.

Sue Kempf has her own record. She wanted the trees on Forest Avenue gone for years, and she finally got her way in what residents call the “Midnight Massacre.” She and Orgill also gave us the Promenade, which cost far more than promised and delivered far less. She actually did try to sell the library, and she supported building a taxpayer-funded parking structure for the Presbyterian Church. Asked about the parking structure at the GOP forum, she said, “I don’t even remember the vote.”

It gets worse. The drainage under the Promenade appears to have problems. A supervisor with the Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control District said the drains were not intelligently designed, asking, “Did anybody use a level?” Mosquitoes have been plaguing the security guard who works for Rubel Jewelers. You can’t make this stuff up.

Protect residents’ quality of life

Our “way of life,” or more honestly, residents’ quality of life will continue to erode if the incumbents win. Vote for Joy Berry, Laura Parisi and Ashley Cintas instead. And vote yes on Measure E. Term limits will open seats, bring in new people, and make future Councils answer to residents instead of to a donor network that has had City Hall to itself for too long.

The incumbents don’t deserve another opportunity to spend and tax us while they erode our quality of life.

LB City Manager Flooding Update Oct. 9, 2026

Posted on

It’s been a busy Friday morning for us here at City Hall, at Marine Safety, and at Public Works.  Here’s what you should know in a nutshell:

• Many noted (us included, of course) the Broadway / Coast Highway flooding.  This is occurring because of a combination of things – the storm swell, the tide level, and the possibility of the presence of a Kelvin Wave (which is not so much a wave, but a higher height to expected tides).  The tide level and waves push into the Laguna / Broadway channel and flood this low-lying area.  It is not wastewater, but it is pretty icky.  While we’ve got equipment out there working daily to clear the channel’s drainage, this isn’t an easy battle – folks should plan on that stretch of Coast Highway being impacted at high tides for several more days.  Use your secret detours, Laguna.

• Aliso Beach is taking some big hits.  While we added rip-rap following Hurricane Marie’s remnants, this one is hitting Aliso hard.  The waves picked up and moved cement trash cans and cement benches well into the parking area.  We’ve closed the coastal parking lot and are asking that folks – even pedestrians – stay away from there at least for the next few days, as the waves are projected to get larger.  It is not safe to be close to the water should a large wave sneak up on you.  As of about 10:30-ish this morning, the Aliso Creek berm naturally breached, as there was a lot of water backed up into the creek (post breach shown below).

• We’re watching the next few days.  We expect them to not be too rainy (but a bit windy) – our main attention will be on the shoreline.  If you see something, say something – use Ask Laguna for any situation you’re concerned about (unless it’s a life-safety event – then of course call 911).  Surfline projects that this event will be with us for 14-16 days, with today being NOT the extreme (!).

All in all, this is pretty significant.  Most Laguna long-timers say they haven’t seen it like this before.  Or at least in recent memory.  Please remind folks to be extra careful by the water, stay off rocks, stay aware of your surroundings, don’t go in unless you’re an expert swimmer or surfer, listen to lifeguards, call in problems when you see them – phew, that’s a lot.
It still will be a great fall weekend, though (band still playing tonight 5-7 at the Promenade, lots of other events, too) – please enjoy it and be careful out there.

$100,000 Walks Into a Laguna Election

Posted on (Updated: )

Laguna caps donations at $500. This new committee started with $100,000.
Courtesy of The Weiss Report

For more than a year we have argued that Laguna Beach elections are not a level playing field. Incumbents run with name recognition, the free publicity that comes with the seat, and a donor network built over years in office. I have said that incumbents typically outraise newcomers at least two to one, and that the money gap is one of the strongest reasons we need term limits.

We were wrong about the size of the gap. It is much bigger than that.

The Gap Was Already Four to One
The candidates’ own Form 460 campaign finance reports for July 1 through September 19 show:
• The three incumbents, Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf and Alex Rounaghi, raised $132,929.
• The six challengers raised about $33,000 combined, not counting money candidates lent their own campaigns.
• Alex Rounaghi alone raised $65,242, nearly twice what all six challengers raised together.
That is a four-to-one advantage. And it is the money we can see, from donors limited to $500 per candidate under the City’s contribution limit.

$100,000 From a Single Company
On October 1, a new committee filed its first contribution report with the City Clerk. Its full name says it all: the Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee Supporting Kempf, Rounaghi and Orgill for City Council 2026, Sponsored by Regency Properties LP and Affiliated Entities (FPPC ID 1497439).

Its Form 497 shows a single contribution of $100,000, received September 30 from Regency Properties L.P., and affiliated entities, of 1555 S. Coast Highway in Laguna Beach. One company sponsors the committee, and one company funded it.

The committee’s Form 497, received by the City Clerk on October 1, 2026, showing the $100,000 contribution from Regency Properties, L.P. Source: City of Laguna Beach campaign disclosure records.

That single contribution is more than three times what the six challengers have raised from all their supporters combined. It is the equivalent of 200 maximum contributions to a candidate, written in one check.

As of this writing, the committee has not reported spending any of it. But ballots are already in voters’ hands, and $100,000 buys a lot of mailers and ads in a town of 19,000 voters. When they arrive, check who paid for them.

How is this possible when the City limits contributions to $500? Because the limit applies to candidates’ own campaigns. Under state law and the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, an independent committee can raise and spend unlimited amounts, as long as it does not coordinate with the candidates it supports. The law requires independence, and I am not alleging that anyone has broken it. But for voters the effect is the same: one large donor can drown out hundreds of residents giving $100 or $250 at a time.

Same Donors, Two Campaigns
The filings also show how tightly the incumbents’ support is connected to the campaign against term limits. Several of the incumbents’ donors who gave to all three of them also gave to Citizens for Laguna’s Future, the committee formed to defeat Measure E. Among them are Joe Hanauer, Patrick Quilter, Christopher Quilter and Cody Engle. Not one sitting councilmember supports term limits. At the Village Laguna forum, all six challengers said yes to term limits and the incumbents said no.

So, the same network that is funding the incumbents is also funding the effort to make sure incumbents never have to step aside. And now a committee funded by a single company has joined them with six figures.

“Just Vote Them Out” Meets a War Chest People who oppose term limits say, “If you don’t like them, just vote them out.” That only works on a level field. When incumbents outraise challengers four to one and a single company adds $100,000 more, a newcomer is not running against an incumbent. They are running against a war chest. Read James Danziger’s article I posted today on Substack. https://georgeweiss.substack.com/p/why-i-will-vote-yes-on-term-limits

Measure E does not ban anyone from serving. It allows two consecutive four-year terms, then a two-year break, after which a former councilmember can run again. Eight years is enough to learn the job and finish projects. The break creates open seats where residents can compete on ideas instead of money. Twenty-eight of Orange County’s 34 cities already have term limits.

Follow the Money Before You Vote
Money only works if voters don’t know where it comes from. The best defense we have is sunlight.

• Look at the filings yourself. Campaign reports for all candidates and committees are public on the City Clerk’s campaign disclosure portal.
• When a glossy mailer arrives, check the “paid for by” line. Ask who is behind that committee and what they want from City Hall.
• Forward this to every Laguna Beach voter you know. Post it, share it, talk about it.
• Vote yes on Measure E and no to candidates that do not support it.
• Ballots are already arriving. Many of our neighbors will vote this week. Please make sure they know what is going on before they do.

*Sources: FPPC Form 460 campaign statements, July 1–September 19, 2026, for Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf, Alex Rounaghi, Nick Aronoff, Ashley Cintas, Joy Berry and Karen Martin; Form 460 for Citizens for Laguna’s Future (through Sept. 19, 2026); Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee (FPPC ID 1497439), Form 497 contribution report filed Oct. 1, 2026; Village Laguna candidate forum, Aug. 31, 2026.

LB City Manager Special Weekend Update

Posted on

Courtesy of Dave Kiff – Laguna Beach City Manager – Sat. Oct. 3, 2026

I’m writing this in between Council meetings because there seems to be confusion suddenly about “Residential Hillside/Protection” (RHP) properties.

Your “TL/DR” Version:

  • No, the City didn’t newly require open space easements over residential hillside properties.
  • No, the City doesn’t direct private property owners to install public trails.
  • No, the City didn’t newly classify properties with 30% slopes as environmentally sensitive areas.
  • Yes, we did add a 90-day response period for applications that are deemed incomplete – in large part because this is a recommended State standard and because sometimes folks just don’t get back to us at all.  Respond with something, please

In Greater Detail:

First, this email is primarily about properties zoned RHP.   If you don’t know how your property is zoned, you can always look it up here.  Use the map to find your property, then click on the parcel.  A window will pop up with parcel information.  It usually has two sections – on one of the two sections, you’ll find something that says “Zone District: R1” or “Zone District: R2” or “Zone District: RHP” or similar.

Let’s get back to the DR Efficiency Ordinance and the RHP Zone.  The RHP zone has a lot of acreage but is small in terms of the number of lots citywide – this zoning applies generally to large parcels that contain steep hillsides or canyons.  Typically these are parcels where at most one can have a single-family home, a yard, and related hardscape – and a lot of canyon or hillside.

Our new DR Efficiency Ordinance, which has been in the works since October 2024 (and has had at least 10 workshops), generally does these three things:

  • It made changes to which projects require Design Review. Many project types now require a lower level of review. Certain new single-family homes may qualify for an exemption if they are single-story, do not exceed 15 feet in height, and meet other requirements.
  • It reduced the number of Design Review criteria. The ordinance reduces the criteria used to evaluate projects from 16 to 11.
  • It put in place a hearing waiver option for Administrative Design Review. An application may be approved without a hearing if no hearing is requested through the waiver process.

You can view the full ordinance here (it’s item #20).

Here’s the kicker: the Ordinance did something that threw folks for a loop – it mirrored things that are in other parts of the Code and our General Plan.

In other words, aspects of the Ordinance simply reiterated current law.  Why would we do this?  Well, too many innocent applicants weren’t aware of certain existing zoning restrictions because they only looked at the Zoning Code, not the General Plan.  And they had early hopes/expectations for their projects solely based on the Zoning Code, not realizing that General Plan requirements apply, too.

Given how complex our codes and General Plan are, you need to look at both.  So the DR Efficiency Ordinance picked up the SAME LANGUAGE that’s in our General Plan – it didn’t revise, undo, or create new limitations for the RHP Zone.

So, as a Q&A:

1 – Did the City create a new requirement for residential hillside properties to dedicate land as permanent open space?  No. That was there under current law.  The ordinance links an existing General Plan requirement to the Zoning Code to make it easier for applicants in the RHP zone to find and understand.  For many years, Policy 14-J of the City’s Open Space/Conservation Element (see page 66) has required an offer of a permanent open space easement as a condition of approval for new development in certain hillside areas. The Open Space/Conservation Element is part of the City’s General Plan, which guides land-use decisions.  The City already applies this policy to new development in the Residential Hillside/Protection (RHP) zone, typically when reviewing a proposal for a new single-family home. Because development approvals must be consistent with the General Plan, the City includes the required offer of an easement as a condition of approval.

2 – What land is covered by the easement?   The easement generally covers portions of the RHP property that will remain in their natural state. It does not include areas used for your home, garage, hardscape, or other improvements, such as a landscaped backyard.  Many RHP properties are among the City’s larger developable lots. Preserving their undeveloped areas helps protect hillside open space over the long term (which is why the requirement is in the General Plan).

3 – Does the City take ownership of the land within the easement or require public trails?  No!  The property remains privately owned. An open space easement limits how the covered area may be used to preserve it as open space.  The City does not require owners to build public trails or other improvements within these easement areas, because we don’t own the property – the resident does. If someone wanted to do those improvements on their own land (hmmm – and I can’t see why they would), they’d have to initiate it herself or himself.

4 – Does the ordinance newly classify slopes greater than 30 percent as environmentally sensitive areas?  No. The Zoning Code already grouped slopes greater than 30 percent with environmentally sensitive areas when determining whether a project requires Design Review. The ordinance did not add or change that requirement.  The ordinance provides a way for a project to qualify for an exemption from this Design Review requirement if a licensed professional certifies that the proposed development will not affect an environmentally sensitive area, including a slope greater than 30 percent.

5 – Why do applicants now have 90 days to resubmit materials after the Planning Division finds an application incomplete?  Remember, this affects the first step that an applicant takes – she or he files a project application with the City, and we check all of the boxes to make sure that the submittal itself – before we even crack it open for analysis – is “complete” (i.e. all there), with the dozens of things that our complex code requires.  The 90-day requirement – which starts AFTER we’ve let an applicant know that something(s) is/are missing – helps keep applicants and the City on time with project approvals.

If someone wants to avoid coming up against the 90-day deadline, we’re happy to help you file the most complete application as you can BEFORE the clock starts and of course to work with you as you’re completing your submittal – just ask!  We’re simply trying to avoid the scenario where we get crickets back when we deem an application incomplete (crickets = bad).  The requirement also aligns with California Department of Justice guidance on 90-day resubmittal periods for housing development applications.

Thanks for reading and for helping us rebut confusion.  If you have any questions about this at all, please ask me, Matt Schnieder, or Anthony Viera.

Candidates don’t show their poker hands …

Posted on

but WE do let you know what they have to ante up
Courtesy of Fair Game by Tom Johnson in Stu News

Running for office is not only about getting your name on the ballot, but also about raising money to promote all aspects of a candidate’s campaign. That includes but is not limited to printed literature, mailings, digital/online advertising, consultants, print advertising, yard signs, postage, polling, research and such.

So raising money is vitally important. The more you have, the more you can do.

Locally, with three seats up for grabs, here’s a look at the most recent filings from the end of September:

Incumbent Alex Rounaghi appears to be the big dog when it comes to his campaign war chest. He has raised $65,742, spent $25,728, has $36,404 in cash on hand and no debt.

Sue Kempf, another of the incumbents, has received $38,752 in contributions, spent $5,050 and has $33,702 in cash on hand. She also shows no debt.

Mayor Mark Orgill had contributions of $28,935, with $8,834 in expenditures, $22,059 in cash on hand and $1,958 of debt.

Ashley Cintas has raised $26,763, spent $8,856 and has $20,998 cash on hand, with debts of $17,091.

Joy Berry has raised $11,689, spent $1,043, with $10,646 in cash, also with no debt.

Nick Aronoff has raised $10,575, spent $4,852, has $6,908 in cash on hand and debt totaling $2,186.

Karen Martin raised $1,599, spent $1,169, has $430 of cash remaining and no debt.

The record search showed “pending totals” for both Edward Bayuk and Laura Parisi.

Donors of note, not necessarily by amount, but according to other factors are:

The Laguna Beach Firefighters PAC contributed $500 each to incumbents Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi.

Howard F. Ahmanson & Fieldstead & Company reported a $2,710 independent expenditure supporting Rounaghi with a slate mailer. This is not considered a donation to Rounaghi’s committee and is legally separate from his campaign’s finances.

Sam Goldstein donated $500 to Rounaghi.

And former Laguna Beach Councilmember George Weiss gave $250 to Aronoff.

For the three seats open for the Laguna Beach Unified School District, five candidates are running. Here’s a look at their disclosure information.

Incumbent Dee Perry had contributions of $10,552, $3,388 in expenses and $7,164 in cash on hand.

Incumbent Joan Malczewski had contributions of $23,407, with expenses of $2,780 and $21,136 in cash on hand. She has outstanding debt of $784.

Elizabeth Bates has had contributions of $7,351, expenses of $3,484 and $3,867 in cash on hand.

Kimberly Smith has raised $28,105 this last period, with $2,666 of expenditures, and $25,438 in cash on hand. She also shows outstanding debt of $200.

Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal has raised $20,719, with expenses of $1,703, with $19,017 in cash on hand. She also has outstanding debts of $3,103.

Incumbent Malczewski is running on a slate with Smith and Sheik-Sadhal, while Perry is running with Bates.

Finally, there is the Measure E initiative. It asks a Yes or No to the following question: Shall an ordinance to amend the Laguna Beach Municipal Code by enacting a limit on consecutive years of service by members of the City Council to a combined total of two four-year consecutive terms, with the ability to again serve as a Councilmember after a lapse of service of at least two years, be adopted?

Reported Measure E contributions show $3,068 supporting the measure and $12,906 in opposition to it.

Ballots for Laguna Beach are expected to begin arriving Monday, Oct. 5.

LBUSD Candidate Letters To The Editor

Posted on

Courtesy of Stu News Letter To The Editor

Stu News Laguna Letters 9-25-26:
Trust the parents, vote Joan, Shaheen and Kimberly
A message from Laguna Beach teachers that is too loud to ignore
Lessons learned

Stu News Laguna Letters 9-18-26:
Contribute vs. control
Why I’m supporting Dee Perry and Elizabeth Bates

Stu News Laguna Letters 9-01-26:
District inquiry on TMS protest supports equal rights for all

Stu News Laguna Letters 8-28-26:
Time for a change, all right

LB Schools Clear Protesters of Wrongdoing After May Rally Chaos

Posted on

By Juliette Kessler
Courtesy of Hoodline.com

Laguna Beach Schools Clear Protesters of Wrongdoing After May Rally Chaos 550 Blumont St. — District Offices Where Protest Began (Google Street View)

An outside investigation into a chaotic protest that erupted outside a Laguna Beach Unified School District board meeting in May has cleared demonstrators of any criminal wrongdoing, even as it found the district was unprepared to manage the crowd that showed up. The Board of Education voted 5-0 to release the findings at its Sept. 10 meeting, closing out a review that examined everything from surveillance footage to text messages exchanged among staff.

The report, dated Aug. 24, was compiled by investigators Ruth Perez Ashley and Thomas Hickman at the request of the district’s law firm, Dannis Woliver Kelley. According to publicrecordlaguna.com, investigators reviewed surveillance footage and other videos, emails, text messages, policies and records, and interviewed all five trustees along with district personnel and community members, including board members James Kelly and Joan Malczewski. The investigation also included interviews with Scott Wittkop and Thasa Zuziak, and investigators reportedly conducted interviews with 14 individuals in mid-July. Board President Sheri Morgan said the review assessed existing procedures and recommended stronger safety protocols compliant with the First Amendment and applicable law, according to the Los Angeles Times.

What Happened on May 14

The protest unfolded the same evening the board voted 3-2 to appoint Don Austin as superintendent, just two days after trustees had voted 3-2 to execute a separation agreement with outgoing superintendent Jason Glass. Police estimated approximately 100 parents, students and district staff took part, while witnesses put the number closer to 200, per the Los Angeles Times. Demonstrators gathered outside the Thurston Middle School library, where the meeting was held, chanting “shame on you” and directing heated remarks at Morgan, Trustee Dee Perry and Trustee Howard Hills. Video footage reviewed by investigators showed protesters also directing derogatory comments at Hills.

District official Joseph Vidal notified school resource officers and supervisory staff to monitor campus activity and delayed the protest until after student dismissal, the Times reported. Vidal said students initially complied with his requests to stop yelling but later became unruly. The public largely complied with instructions to arrive during a specified 3:30 p.m. timeframe after buses had already left campus. Morgan told the paper she was escorted from her car into the board room by two police officers and described walking through the crowd as a gauntlet and a walk of shame.

Investigators Find No Crime, but Note Confusion Over Perry

Investigators concluded the May 14 demonstration amounted to protected First Amendment activity and found no evidence of criminal activity or intent to physically harm board members, staff, parents, children or anyone else, according to publicrecordlaguna.com’s account of the report. The investigative report characterized the demonstration as an intense, loud exercise of First Amendment rights targeted at specific board members, and investigators determined the meeting itself was louder and more disruptive than usual but remained nonviolent.

The report’s account of Perry’s experience at the meeting diverges from other descriptions circulating afterward. Perry said a protester came toward her face and startled her, and said she lost her balance. Investigators, drawing on video footage and witness testimony, found that no protesters physically approached her and that she instead walked toward a parent and stumbled into her. The conflicting accounts leave the circumstances disputed, and the investigation’s conclusion stands as the district’s official finding.

Security Gaps and a Scramble to Fix Them

The report also found that the district had no designated area for demonstrators to clear a path to the board room, and it identified a broader lack of systems for handling protests at meetings. Investigators noted that protesters were allowed to place signage on bookshelves behind the dais before board members returned from closed session — a detail underscoring how little structure existed that night.

The district didn’t wait for the report to start making changes. Five days after the rally, on May 19, administrators met with Laguna Beach’s city manager, city attorney and police chief — identified in district records as Dave Kiff, Jeff Calvert and the city’s legal team — to clarify law enforcement’s role during protests and larger crowds, publicrecordlaguna.com reported. Manoj Roychowdhury corresponded with district staff, police and community members about safety protocols on May 21, and by June 3 the district had already implemented or begun implementing new measures, including reserved board parking, directional signage, separate board access, controlled restrooms, crowd-management procedures and ingress-and-egress protocols. Those efforts also produced restricted-access signage and a separate secure library entrance. By the following board meeting on June 4, the district’s posture had visibly changed, with notice-restriction signs and stanchions appearing, according to lagunabeachchat.com. The outside investigation itself wasn’t assigned until July 1 — well after those security changes were already underway — and the district said it cost $15,000.

What the Report Recommends Going Forward

The investigation’s recommendations go beyond what the district had already put in place. It called for clearer crowd-management procedures, defined staff responsibilities and improved board access, along with consideration of another venue for unusually large meetings. The report also proposed a steering committee to develop and implement a plan for maintaining order during public meetings, security roles established through training and refined law-enforcement agreements, and a written statement the board president could recite in certain circumstances to preserve decorum.

A Wider Pattern of Discontent

The May 14 protest didn’t emerge out of nowhere. A month earlier, on April 16, roughly 400 people marched from the district office down Park Avenue to Main Beach and back before a board meeting, an event organized by the Laguna Beach Unified Faculty Association and the California School Employees Association, according to the Laguna Beach Indy. That march included teachers, staff, parents and students calling for changes in school board leadership. As the Orange County Register reported days later, complaints against the board had been building from union representatives, parents, students and retired teachers alike, setting the stage for the tension that boiled over on May 14.

ACLU Raises Separate Brown Act Concerns

Apart from the investigation, the ACLU of Southern California has raised its own objection to how the board handled the aftermath of the protest. In a letter dated July 7, the organization alleged the Board of Education violated California’s Brown Act by discussing the May 14 protest in closed session, and it demanded the district cure or correct the alleged violations, per a guest opinion published by the Laguna Beach Indy.

Thirty-Six Years a Contractor, and “Very Little Leeway?”

Posted on

Coutesy of The Weiss Report

Mayor Mark Orgill claims the council had no choice but to accept the bottom-line number on the $5.5 million Promenade contract. The city’s own rules—and his professional background—say otherwise.

At yesterday’s candidate forum, one issue stood out: questions about the lack of line-item cost transparency behind the Promenade on Forest. As a key champion of the project, Mayor Mark Orgill offered explanations that warrant serious scrutiny from voters. In an election year especially, accountability matters.

At the Greater Laguna Beach GOP City Council Candidate Forum, the moderator asked a pointed question about the Promenade on Forest Avenue: why did the winning bid allocate roughly $180,000 for 18 Adirondack chairs—about $10,000 apiece?

The city explained on Instagram that contractors routinely spread labor, overhead, bonding, insurance, and profit across more than 100-line items, meaning no single line reflects isolated retail costs. When asked what due diligence he personally performed before approving the contract, Mayor Mark Orgill deflected:

“We followed the rules given to us by the state for general law cities, and you look at what the lowest bidder was, and that’s what we chose. You have very little leeway to get in there and question various different elements… It’s the bottom-line number.”

That answer might be expected from a layman, but Orgill has held a California contractor’s license for 36 years. Few people in Laguna Beach are better equipped to read a bid schedule—or know what a city can legally demand before opening a bid envelope.

The city should have required an itemized bid with line-by-line labor and material costs. It simply chose not to. That raises concerns about transparency and the opportunity to pad the bid even if it was the lowest one. Certainly, based on the quality of the materials and workmanship of the Promenade it begs that question be answered.

On January 13, 2026, the council unanimously awarded Superb Engineering a $5.5 million contract, authorized up to $1.1 million in change orders, and shifted $4.4 million from other capital projects to cover a funding shortfall. That is a major public expenditure, and the $10,000 chair illustrates how poorly it was evaluated.

Handcuffs that City Used on Itself: Orgill was wrong when he claimed the council was handcuffed by state rules for general law cities. Laguna Beach specifically opted out of default state procedures (Public Contract Code § 20160) by adopting the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (§ 22000). While projects must be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, nothing in state or local law forces the city to tolerate an opaque bidding format where chairs appear at $10,000 each.

Contractors do not draft the bid schedule; the city does. Agencies across California routinely protect taxpayers through standard safeguards:

  • Separating Indirect Costs: Breaking out mobilization, bonding, insurance, and overhead into dedicated lines so they cannot be hidden inside equipment costs.
  • Unbalanced-Bid Clauses: Reserving the explicit right to disqualify mathematically or materially distorted proposals.
  • Schedules of Values: Requiring detailed labor and material cost breakdowns or placing pre-bid calculation documents into escrow.

During the forum, Orgill conceded that under city code, the council holds the power to reject any or all bids. A council with the authority to scrap a bid package and re-advertise is never powerless. When Orgill admitted in hindsight that “it would have been nice to have” line-item details, he confirmed those figures were entirely obtainable.

In unit-price municipal contracting, line items govern what the city pays during change orders. When the council doesn’t do that and grants $1.1 million in change-order authority, distorted unit prices create costly blind spots.

Laguna Beach residents deserve to know: Did bid documents contain unbalanced-bid clauses? Were indirect costs isolated? And what did council members actually examine before approving $5.5 million for a controversial project?

Improvement begins with honest accountability. When a 36-year licensed contractor sits on the dais as the Mayor during a controversial project, residents expect that expertise to safeguard public funds—not excuse a lack of scrutiny.

City Manager Update – LB City Council Agenda for Sept. 22, 26

Posted on

Below is a summary of what’s on the City Council agenda for this coming Tuesday, September 22, 2026.  In this agenda summary, I cover what I think are the more noteworthy items that will appear on the Council agenda.  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. 

 We have a study session this week – starting at 3:00 p.m.  It’s fairly meaty – the introduction to a multi-month community process to update our General Plan, including critical elements like open space, housing, and more.  We are required by law to do some of these updates, and need to get going on them (it was Strategic Priority #4 for the Council for 2026).  This is a discussion of the process to do this – a process that will roll out over time, involve a Request for Proposals for consultant assistance (which is shown in draft form with the staff report), include a major advisory committee, and more.  Please know that this process is recommended to reaffirm and follow the same mission and guiding principles as guided the last major General Plan effort – these were formulated in 2012, and have stood the test of time.  I’ve attached them as a PDF.

 The regular session starts at 5:00 p.m.

I’ll highlight these items:

  • I write every now and then about tripping and falling (not myself, usually) and sidewalks.  We’ve been happy with work done by a contractor to identify trip and fall and ADA issues and to then resolve them, both quickly and efficiently.  We’ll continue to do more of this with the same contractor – Precision – with a new contract.  If you see areas of sidewalk that need grinding, please bring your phone, take a photo, and use Ask Laguna.  Ask Laguna remains the best way to get infrastructure needs addressed quickly within existing workflows.  Thanks!
  • We’re continuing to move forward with the Fire Station #4 project in South Laguna.  An item on the agenda pre-qualifies seven contractors to construct the station.  As folks may know, the retaining wall is being constructed now.  The Project’s webpage is here.    
  • We have an item about personnel that deserves some explanation – in some cases, where we have a vacancy and an active recruitment, we can use “retired annuitants” to perform short-term work.  We’ve used a handful of them recently, and continue to have need for this role.  Currently, our HR / Risk Management Director position is under recruitment, as is Public Works Director and Assistant City Manager / COO.  This agenda item ensures that we’re meeting Cal-PERS obligations associated with retired annuitants.
  • A labor agreement is proposed for adoption between the City and the Newport Beach Police Employees Association.  The NBPEA represents both officers and non-sworn personnel.  The agreement is proposed for 10-1-2026 through 9-30-2027.
  • Yet again, the DR efficiency ordinance comes back in its same form but in a format acceptable to the California Coastal Commission (aspects of the LCP changes must be adopted via resolution).
  • We have two different policy manuals – an Administrative Policy Manual that generally the City Manager oversees (generally for more minor stuff), and the Council Policy Manual whereby the Council sets policies on certain more major things – financial policies, naming things after people, to name a few).  This item would add policies to the Council Policy Manual relating to travel, capital assets, required training, and Artificial Intelligence.  The AI policy follows generally the policy of the GovAI Coalition, led by the City of San Jose.  We do use AI today – to assist in research, to develop parts of documents, and more.  The new policy assigns responsibilities, sets rules for everyday use, addresses public safety, and provides transparency / oversight. 
  • An item considers the award to the PD of a $60K Operation Stonegarden grant, which we’ve participated in since 2022.  Operation Stonegarden is set up to work regionally with local, State, and the Federal government on items like human trafficking, narcotics smuggling, and more remote border crossings.  We do not check immigration status, communicate statuses to other agencies, or perform an action contrary to the California Values Act (SB 54, 2017).
  • There is a return of a previously-heard appeal – 31985/87 Coast Highway – which is on the ocean side of PCH just south of 1,000 Steps.  Council will be asked to adopt a resolution ratifying its previous decision to adopt more restrictive conditions than DRB approved.

 That’s what’s on the consent calendar.  The regular business calendar is pretty involved, too.

  • You’ll want to hear about SCE’s plans for Targeted Undergrounding (“TUG”) projects across town.  It’s a remarkable investment in undergrounding utility poles – funded by SCE ratepayers across the region – which significantly benefits us in Laguna Beach.  Read more about TUG here.  Please watch the presentation.
  • The next item discusses the use of the Irvine Bowl for later this fall (October 23-25), with some modifications from last year’s testing period.  If approved, the concerts will occur with changes to speaker direction and additional sound monitoring.  Please read the staff report for detailed information. 
  • The third item relates to parking requirements and the outdoor dining program that’s in place today – several places have outdoor dining that involves parking spaces, both public and private.  Council has asked us to come back with ideas and approaches as a December 31, 2026 deadline for some of the uses nears.  This item is a temperature check – to see if we’re on the right path with what the Council and community wants to see.  Again, a good staff report to read if you’re interested in this issue.

 Lastly, there is one DRB call-up – the residential project at 31552 Eagle Rock Way in South Laguna. 

 A couple of community notes:

  • I want to apologize en masse for my lack of response to individual emails of late.  I usually have time to get to them, and to respond thoughtfully.  But not recently.  I feel like I’ve missed a lot of them – but I’ve had to focus on stuff like the coastal erosion issues, staff changes, and the hospital (to name a few).  I don’t know how or if I’ll ever catch up – heck, I’m here on a Saturday.
  • Speaking of stuff that takes time, the Promenade. This week saw the removal of the fencing and barricades at the Glenneyre / Forest intersection, the placement of the Bartel Art Cubes, the nautilus bench, and bike racks.  Attention next goes to finding a better “binder” for some of the DG, finishing brick work on the interior (which will replace a lot of the unbound, dusty DG), activating wi-fi and the speaker system, and the completion of the Coast Highway / Promenade side.  It’s the last major part to be constructed and will look more like the Glenneyre side) with removal of stuff like the concrete blocks.
  • Folks have asked me about updates regarding the hospital.  I think that Alex and Bob’s guest column in Stu News is probably the best update.
  • Because I did one year about this time and get questions about the issue, I updated an “explainer” about City pensions.

KXFM school board candidate forum

Posted on

KXFM school board candidate forum centers on trust, technology and student achievement

By CLARA BEARD
Courtesy of Stu News
Photos by Mary Hurlbut

Three candidates for the Laguna Beach Unified School District Board of Education discussed student achievement, artificial intelligence, board governance and restoring trust during a September 8 candidate forum hosted by KXFM at the Neighborhood Congregational Church.

The school board forum followed a City Council candidate forum. Shaena Stabler of Stu News moderated the discussion, which featured incumbent Joan Malczewski and challengers Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal and Kimberly Smith.

Incumbent Dee Perry and candidate Elizabeth Bates did not attend.
Moderator Shaena Stabler (left) with candidate Joan Malczewski during the KXFM school board forum

Stabler opened the school board portion with questions about the strengths each candidate would bring to the board and areas where they hoped to grow. Malczewski, a UC Irvine history professor completing her first term on the board, pointed to her experience working with people who hold differing views.

“I love a good disagreement. I love a good argument,” Malczewski said. “I don’t see that as being a bad thing.”

Sheik-Sadhal, an attorney and longtime school volunteer, said coalition-building was one of her strongest skills, drawing on her PTA leadership and experience organizing parents. She said she is working to balance her instinct to lead with her heart with the need to remain “factual and objective and patient.”

Smith, a technology executive and parent of two Laguna Beach public school students, said her professional work has prepared her to navigate board governance, budgets, conflict and strategic planning. She said effective governance requires a clear focus on the district’s mission and students.

Joan Malczewski addresses the audience at Neighborhood Congregational Church’s Bridge Hall

The forum then turned to how a high-performing district should identify areas for improvement.

Sheik-Sadhal said the board should begin by listening to teachers and staff, whom she described as the experts in education. She said she was particularly interested in whether the district is adequately serving students who may not be struggling academically but are less visible or less likely to seek leadership roles.

“What can we do and continue to build on…the next innovative thing that we can do for our students?” she said. “Always the question should be what is best for our students for their future.”

Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal discusses her priorities during the school board candidate forum

Smith said the board’s central responsibility is to set the district’s vision, hold itself accountable to its standards and manage the superintendent, rather than direct curriculum. She said the district should continue to raise expectations while carefully considering technology and artificial intelligence in classrooms.

Smith said she does not support student-facing artificial intelligence tools at the elementary level, while acknowledging students need preparation to understand misinformation and information bias as the technology becomes more prevalent.

“We don’t want to lose the core critical-thinking skills, the collaboration, unique innate human skills that we can learn only through human interactions and with incredible teachers,” Smith said.

Malczewski focused on reading habits and the effects of technology on students’ ability to think deeply. While Laguna Beach students perform well on traditional metrics, she said national data show only 14% of students report reading for pleasure.

“We have a very literate student population, but we don’t have a culture of reading anymore,” Malczewski said.

She added that students need the “endurance to get through difficult texts” and complex problems rather than constantly shifting between short pieces of content.

Questions about trust and board collaboration repeatedly returned to the candidates’ views of the district’s recent conflicts.

Smith said she would prioritize listening to teachers, families and the broader community. She referred to a vote of no confidence by teachers in the board during the past year and said the board must take responsibility for rebuilding relationships.

“The district does not serve us,” Smith said. “We serve this district.”

Kimberly Smith speaks as Joan Malczewski and Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal look onKimberly Smith speaks as Joan Malczewski and Shaheen Sheik-Sadhal look on

Sheik-Sadhal said the parents she has worked with over the past year and a half came from different political perspectives but shared a concern for students. Their common “north star,” she said, was determining what was best for children.

Malczewski said a functioning school board must recognize that it operates as one governing body, even when members disagree. She said she tried during her first two years on the board to ensure different perspectives were reflected in board discussions and documents.

“We don’t have to agree, but you’re supposed to act as one board,” Malczewski said.

The candidates also agreed that school board members should avoid public online arguments with constituents. Smith said officials should identify the role and perspective from which they are speaking online, while Seik-Sadhal said she would not say something online that she would not say in person.

Malczewski said board members should be “a booster for the district” while remaining transparent and willing to speak directly with community members.

Asked what one word they hoped would describe an LBUSD graduate, Sheik-Sadhal chose “happy,” while Smith chose “prepared.” Malczewski said “fulfilled” because she wants a district that meets students’ varied aspirations and allows them to lead fulfilling lives.

The Takeover Nobody Should Have Allowed — Including Mark Orgill

Posted on

Two rulings, one conclusion: Terra Laguna was never part of MOM’s empire. The City and the Festival of Arts let it happen anyway — while their paid consultant sat on the Council.

Coutesy of George Weiss

A follow-up to “ Watchdog or Gatekeeper? ” — what the arbitrator’s Final Award confirms about the June 30, 2023 takeover. Read that article HERE.

Dear Readers,

I met Mark Orgill in the late summer of 2022 and encouraged him to run for City Council. As we got to know each other, he told me about his relationship with his former boss, Mo Honarkar. He said he was instrumental in getting Mo the lease for Terra Laguna. He also said he had a good relationship with the Festival of Arts (FOA). I took both statements on faith and still believe what he said was true.

Information obtained confirms this as Mark was paid $10,000 by FOA “ to understand the process for the submittal of an application to do development or construction…” under a consulting agreement in 2022.

MOM, it seems, claimed that Mo had agreed merged all his properties and leases into MOM LLCs via a joint venture agreement (JV) with Mo. But there was no proof as the Arbitrator had stated.

The Arbitrator’s decision on that question is quoted below more than once.

So, the question remains: what convinced FOA, and the City, to assist the MOM Group in evicting Mo from Terra on June 30 2023? The Laguna Beach Police Department was called that day by Mo but refused to get involved saying it was a “business dispute.” The arbitration documents say otherwise. It is reasonable to assume that MOM didn’t manage to do this without the help of other parties.

And furthermore, why didn’t FOA and the City’s attorneys know this? And if they did, on what legal basis did they approve the takeover?

There are many unanswered questions, and I will continue to seek answers from all the parties involved. But what we know now does not look good for FOA, the City, or Mr. Orgill.

Thanks for reading my Substack articles,

George

——————————————————————————————————

What the Arbitrator Found

On May 12, 2026, retired Judge David A. Thompson, sitting as arbitrator in the JAMS arbitration between Mo Honarkar and the MOM Respondents (Mahender Makhijani, Continuum Analytics, and the MOM entities), issued his Final Award. It runs 44 pages and awards Honarkar and the MOM JV Entities roughly $1.33 billion in combined direct and derivative damages. Read the Indy article HERE.

Buried in Section III.L of that award addresses Honarkar’s declaratory relief claim, a finding that speaks directly to what happened at Terra Laguna Beach in late June of 2023:

“ (4) The following entities appear on Exhibit C of the Operating Agreements and ACA but were never intended by the parties to be Contributed Entities to the JV: 4G — Terra Laguna Beach Inc. — (Ex. 1354; 7.3 Tr. at 1915:7-1919:6.) ”

In plain English: Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. it declares that the entity that operates the restaurant on the Festival of Arts grounds was never part of the joint venture Honarkar and Makhijani’s MOM Group formed. It was never merged into MOM’s holdings, never one of the roughly 20 properties MOM took control of. The arbitrator carried that finding into his formal conclusions:

“ 11. Claimants have proven their declaratory relief claim against the MOM Parties; and Claimants are therefore entitled to the declaratory relief requested. (Sec. III.L. above; FAC at 27.) ”

The Arbitrator had already said as much more than a year earlier. In a May 12, 2025 Ruling on Request for Clarification and quoted directly in the Final Award the arbitrator confirmed his Partial Interim Award “ was intended to and did in fact determine the Declaratory Relief Entities (including Terra Laguna Beach, Inc.) are not now and never have been owned by the MOM JV Entities. ”

That finding raises an obvious question: why did the Festival of Arts file an unlawful detainer action against Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. — demanding rent for January and February 2026 — when the presiding judge ultimately ruled that Honarkar had been deprived of actual possession of the restaurant since June 30, 2023, that the Festival never restored it even after recognizing him as Terra’s lawful president and CEO, and that his obligation to pay the disputed rent therefore never arose?

The court invalidated the Three-Day Notice, held the Festival could not maintain the eviction action on it, and named Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. the prevailing party, entitled to possession of the restaurant at 650C Laguna Canyon Road and to move for its attorney’s fees and costs. (More on that ruling below.)

Not now. Never have been.

The award repeats the point a third time, in a footnote explaining why Terra’s lost restaurant income was calculated separately from the $326 million in property-portfolio damages: “ the Arbitrator notes Terra Laguna was never contributed to the joint venture. (PFA at 40, para. 4.) — Because Terra Laguna was never a joint venture property”

Three separate places in the record. Same conclusion each time.

Why This Matters for the City Council Allegations

This finding reframes what Hasty Honarkar told the Council on June 23. She described armed guards representing the MOM Group taking physical control of Terra on June 30 — July 1, 2023, and accused the city and the Festival of Arts of letting a “ hostile takeover ” proceed with zero accountability. The day before MOM CA Investco provided an Indemnification Agreement that would shield FOA from legal liability and stated that MOM holds all shares of Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. But it seems they didn’t check the Joint Venture Agreement (JV) between Mo and MOM.

If Terra had been a jointly owned asset in dispute between business partners, the city’s posture of studied neutrality and treat it as a private matter, might be defensible. But the arbitrator found, based on the parties’ own contribution exhibits and sworn testimony, that Terra was never MOMs to take in the first place. That changes the July 1 2023 takeover from a contract dispute into something closer to what the Honarkar family alleged all along: an outside party (MOM) asserting control over a business it had no ownership stake in, while the city and the Festival of Arts did nothing to stop it.

A Second Court Reached the Same Conclusion

It isn’t only the arbitrator. On July 28, 2026, the Orange County Superior Court (Department C61) ruled in a separate unlawful detainer case — Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach v. Terra Laguna Beach, Inc., Case No. 30-2026-01550059-CU-UD-CJC — that the Festival could not evict Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. from the restaurant at 650C Laguna Canyon Road.

The court’s findings, drawn from trial testimony by Honarkar, Festival President David Perry, and FOA Director of Security Operations track the arbitrators on several points. MOM CA occupied and operated the restaurant from July 1, 2023 until MOM’s bankruptcy proceedings intervened in the spring of 2025.

  • The court found that the Festival “knowingly permitted MOM CA to occupy and operate the premises pursuant to the Indemnification Agreement beginning in July 2023” using the same Indemnification Agreement MOM CA executed on June 30, 2023, the day of the takeover, with the Festival signing the following day.
  • No later than December 16, 2025, the court found that the Festival knew Honarkar was Terra’s lawful President and CEO. Yet neither the Festival nor Honarkar himself held keys to the restaurant, and the Festival neverrestored his possession — even after Honarkar asked, in August 2025, for permission to resume operating.
  • Because the Festival never restored possession, the court held, Honarkar’s obligation to pay rent for January and February 2026 never arose — which meant the Three-Day Notice to Pay Rent or Quit the Festival later served overstated what was actually owed and could not support an eviction.
  • The court named Terra Laguna Beach, Inc., the prevailing party, entitled to possession of the restaurant and to move for its attorney’s fees and costs.

On cross-examination, FOA President, Mr. Perry acknowledged that the Festival never sought reimbursement from MOM CA for any of this because, MOM’s founder, Mahender Makhijani, was in federal prison and, in his view, recovery efforts would have been futile. That is a remarkable admission from an organization that spent nearly three years treating MOM CA as Terra’s rightful occupant when they should have known better.

Questions That Still Demand Answers

None of this resolves the conflict-of-interest questions I raised three weeks ago, including Mayor Orgill’s wife working for Continuum Analytics, being appointed as Manager of Terra on July 1, and the roughly $500,000 settlement he received from a MOM affiliate. The 2022 consulting deal between Orgill and FOA’s attorney underscores just how intertwined their ties were.

The arbitrator’s findings removed one of the city’s few remaining outs: it can no longer say the Terra takeover was simply a private ownership dispute to be ignored. The record showed even back in 2023 that Terra was never MOMs to begin with. Laguna Beach residents are owed an explanation.

We also know Orgill worked closely with Mo from 2017 to 2020, even claiming credit for helping secure the 2019 Terra lease and then developing the site until the MO/Orgill business relationship soured. Mr. Orgill knew, or should have known that Terra was never part of the joint venture.

So why did a sitting council member, who had consulted for FOA in 2022 with direct access to FOA leadership, NOT advise urge them to read the JV agreement? A review would have shown that Terra was excluded from the JV , stopping an unlawful eviction before it started. Now both FOA, the City and perhaps Mr. Orgill too will face another court hearing in October, one brought forward by Mo that alleges fraud.

Special Council Meeting – Mon., Sept 14 3:30 p.m.

Posted on

Courtesy of the Laguna Beach City Manager’s Office
Hi Readers!

The City Attorney and I asked to set a special City Council meeting for Monday, September 14th at 3:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.  That agenda should go out shortly.  There is one item.

The Council will be asked to ratify the decision to proclaim a local emergency for the Hurricane Marie / Summer 2026 coastal erosion / anticipating El Nino issues.  State law and our Muni Code say that the Council has to consider and ratify it within 7 days of the proclamation in order for it to stay in effect.

The proclamation is attached.
State of Local Emergency – 9-10-2026 Coastal Erosion El Nino Hurricane Marie Impacts

If you have any questions, please ask.

Festival of Arts Violated Liquor Law Putting Community At Risk

Posted on

Courtesy of Laguna Beach Small Business Alliance

Friday, we wrote about the debacle around the Chamber of Commerce cancelling Taste of Laguna and why we believe Mayor Orgill and/or his wife were implicated in this.

What is more important is the fact that the Board of the Festival of Arts and the City Manager put the public at risk by violating the terms of the daily alcohol permit that the head of the Alcohol and Beverage Control so graciously approved allowing them to have eight consecutive weeks of one-day alcohol licenses that are normally approved for nonprofit festival events.  The conditions of the license were clear.  The law firm that the Festival hired to assist in the process, Palmieri, Tyler, Wiener, Wilhelm & Waldron LLP, would have known this and should have advised their client of the terms.

Meanwhile, if the Mayor’s wife who was controlling Terra, had paid the taxes due to the Franchise Tax Board, Terra would not have had its alcohol license suspended and they wouldn’t have had to go through all of these obstacles.  Remember, she was employed by the group that fraudulently took control of Terra from Mo Honarkar and whose head, Mahender, was arrested and has been charged for two felonies related to a $100 million loan-fraud scheme.

TERMS OF DAILY ALCOHOL LICENSE
The terms above were clear.  The festival was allowed to serve beer and wine at Courtside Kitchen, meaning the tennis courts.  They were not to allow alcohol opened or closed to leave the approved premises where patrons could then drink in the festival grounds or leave the festival grounds with alcohol that they can then consume.

Why is this important?  It’s important because alcohol when consumed is supposed to be monitored by staff that are certified under the Responsible Beverage Service requirements along with security who make sure that alcohol does not leave the designated area.

The 4 points above are clear:
1. Alcohol shall be consumed only in the designated area and shall not be taken out of that area.  It is clear by what the security guard said as well as the signs, the Festival was blatantly in violation.

2. Security guards should be present.  This is to prevent people leaving the designated area with alcohol.  Not to encourage them to do so.

3. The security should prevent people from carrying alcohol out of the designated area.  Nope, same as 2.  We know that didn’t happen.

4. Alcohol should be in distinctive cups so that the alcohol can be identified and different than the cups that non-alcoholic beverages are served in.  In this case, they sold full bottles of wine or beer in the original containers and allowed patrons to walk out of the designated area with them.  With no-one monitoring, patrons could easily transfer the alcohol into other containers and drink in the festival area, the Irvine Bowl while watching the Pageant of the Masters, or leaving the festival grounds and wandering around Laguna.

Above is the description of the type of license that the Festival had and is going to try to get again for the Coast Film Festival in October.  What’s to prevent the City from breaking the law and endangering the public again.

Although the President of the Festival of the Arts, David Perry, was a practicing attorney, but is currently inactive, I trust that he still understands how to read and understand legal documents such as the one that he signed.

And when Laguna Beach Police Captain, David Dereszynski, signed the license application, I am hopeful that he along with his department understood their responsibilities in keeping the community safe as well.  I am hopeful that the Chief of Police, Mr. Safest Beach City in OC Calvert, understands the terms of this license as well and why alcohol consumption must always be monitored to ensure people are not overserved.

I also trust that with a lifelong career working in municipal affairs with decades working as City Manager or Assistant City Manager, Dave Kiff would also understand how these permits work and what it means to keep alcohol in the designated area, which was easy to distinguish from other areas since the designated area was the tennis courts.  Surely Dave would have noticed the signs that said only closed alcohol containers beyond this point when he attended the festival.  We are not sure Mr. Kiff actually signed this as it appears slightly different than many of his other signatures.  Yet, we are confident he was aware since his office issued this determination on the matter.

The determination also states that the City of Laguna Beach gets 10% of all the food and alcohol sales from this arrangement, so there is definitely a motive.  I wonder what fund this revenue goes to and how it will be tracked?  Hopefully, our very capable and trustworthy treasurer, Laura Paris, can answer.  As you know, she is also running for City Council because she appears to be concerned with how Council and City Management is handling finances.

We first contacted City Manager Dave Kiff and City Attorney Megan Garibaldi on July 15, 2026 regarding our concerns over this issue and they never responded.  The City’s determination states the following:

4. This Special Event Permit shall be subject to review and modification of the conditions of approval by the City Manager, if written complaints are received or operating conditions warrant revisions to mitigate a potential impact.

5. It is understood that the conditions of approval for Special Event Permit Application (SEP 2026-0001) shall be and hereby are obligations of and binding upon the Applicant and his/her heirs, successors, assigns, agents, and representatives. Failure to comply with such conditions, and each of them, and any other related federal, state, and local regulations may be grounds for modification or revocation of Special Event Permit Application (SEP 2026-0001).

By failing to respond to a complaint regarding legality of a state governed license, the City is violating state law.  We will be contacting the California Department of Justice to further look into this matter since the City appears to be operating in a manner of organized crime since they also are receiving revenue from this arrangement.

So with the President of the Festival of Arts signing that they understand the permit, and the City Manger of Laguna Beach signing the application, and then the Laguna Beach Police Captain signing the application, how did the City and the Festival of Arts get this so so wrong?

Why were they willing to put the public at risk with unmonitored alcohol consumption just so that the Festival could make more money?

Now that the Promenade is open to the public with signs that they say “No Alcohol Beyond This Point”, should the public feel safe in the City known as the DUI Capital of California?

Should we feel safe when tens of thousands of visitors from all over will be visiting Laguna in a few weeks for the Coast Film Festival?  How about when Council begins to hold more concerts at the Irvine Bowl as Councilmember Alex Rounaghi implied at the Village Laguna City Council Candidate debate?

Why does the City continue to make it impossible for businesses in town to operate, but give special deals and consideration for their friends?

The buck stops with 5 council members and 3 of them are up for election in a few months.

WE WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN ALL OUR ATTEMPTS TO CONTACT CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER DAVE KIFF, AND CITY ATTORNEY MEGAN GARIBALDI, NONE HAVE RESPONDED.