Author: LBChat

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

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.

Laguna City Council Race Takes Shape

Posted on

9 City Council Candidates Make Their Case
By Diane Armitage
Coutesy of The Best of Laguna Beach

Laguna’s first City Council Candidate Forum brought 28 questions, surprising consensus, sharp differences … and one unexpected revelation from the City Treasurer.

Village Laguna hosted the first candidate forum of the 2026 election season this Monday, Aug. 31, bringing all nine candidates to City Council Chambers for questions ranging from housing and wildfire preparedness to tourism, parking, development and City spending.

The field included current Mayor Mark Orgill, Councilmembers Alex Rounaghi and Sue Kempf, longtime City Treasurer Laura Parisi, and challengers Nick Aronoff, Joy Berry, Karen Martin, Edward Bayuk and Ashley Cintas.

With nine people on the dais and answers generally limited to a minute, there wasn’t much opportunity for leisurely policy discussion. There was, however, plenty to learn!

Laguna Beach has nine candidates competing for three Council seats. Help another voter get to know the field – hit Share below.

Share

A word before we begin: Running for public office in Laguna Beach takes courage. So does sitting on a dais before a packed room and responding, often in 60 seconds or less, to questions you haven’t seen in advance – some straightforward, some pointed and some the candidates themselves challenged.

This article isn’t a scorecard. It’s an effort to give Laguna voters a clearer look at what each candidate actually said, where they differed and, where the facts behind a question or an answer needed additional context.

Village Laguna provided Best of Laguna Beach™ with its written questions Tuesday after the forum at my request. I’m including that exact wording here.
In all, candidates fielded 28 questions over the course of the forum. Rather than march readers through every single one, I’ve focused here on the majority – questions and exchanges that revealed the most about the candidates and the issues facing Laguna.
A note on Verification of Facts: Best of Laguna™ independently checked factual claims, figures and contextual information presented during the forum. When additional context materially clarifies what was said or asked, I’ve noted it as Best of Laguna™ Verified.

When nearly everybody says “no.”

The first lightning round demonstrated one of the challenges of separating nine candidates in a single evening: Sometimes there just isn’t much separation.

A taxpayer-funded downtown parking structure? Negatory.
City acquisition of Laguna Canyon Road, with its substantial ongoing costs and liabilities? Another universal no.

The use of Roundup in Laguna’s open space didn’t find much love either.
Transparency with City General and Environmental Plans? Of course.
Develop more recreational facilities? Consensus: Nice idea but, for the most part, we have bigger budget fish to fry.

Should the City get more aggressive with short-term rentals? Hard “YES.”

The more interesting moments came when the answers began to separate – and when candidates challenged the question itself.

First up: 675 homes downtown?

Village Laguna opened the forum with the Downtown Specific Plan:

Q: The city is preparing changes to the Downtown Specific Plan that include increasing the current building height limits and allowing developers to demolish existing one and two-story buildings that will be replaced with taller structures, potentially adding 675 residential units. Where do you stand on changing the DSP?

Whatever voters may think about adding housing elsewhere in Laguna, one thing became clear quickly: there was no groundswell on this dais for substantially rebuilding historic downtown to accommodate it.

Nick Aronoff opposed adding stories downtown.
Mayor Mark Orgill emphasized preservation of Laguna’s historic core.
Joy Berry argued that an already constrained downtown floodplain was the wrong place to add substantial housing and that “downtown is not broken.”
Sue Kempf pointed instead to adaptive reuse, including converting upper-floor office space in existing nonconforming buildings, and greater housing opportunity farther into the canyon.
Karen Martin raised both flood and wildfire-evacuation concerns.
Edward Bayuk opposed significant redevelopment of the downtown corridor, noting that there are plenty of other options in town.
Laura Parisi opposed substantial downtown development.
Ashley Cintas questioned the economics and logistics of demolishing existing buildings when other alternatives citywide exist.
Alex Rounaghi went after the number itself, challenging the suggestion that 675 units represented what Laguna was actually being required to accommodate downtown.

Alex has a point there.

The Best of Laguna Verified:
“675 units”

The 675 units cited in the question are not Laguna Beach’s state housing mandate, nor is the City under orders to build 675 residences downtown. The figure comes from a higher-density scenario being studied as part of the environmental review (EIR) of possible Downtown Specific Plan changes.

Laguna’s current Regional Housing Needs Allocation requires the City to plan to accommodate 394 housing units citywide through 2029. It does not require the City itself to build them.

How do we bring in more City revenue?

Adding potential revenue to the City’s coffers started with this question for all the candidates:

Q: Given that 74% of the revenue of Laguna bars and restaurants is from visitors, would you support a ballot measure to impose a tax on bar and restaurant customers to help cover the costs to the city incurred from visitors?

This was a hard “no” across all the candidates, with most commenting that revenue can be found other ways. Ashley Cintas added that this could increase restaurant closures, Laura Parisi commenting that it puts our restaurants at severe disadvantage to thos in neighboring cities, and Joy Berry adding that the City needs to protect its small business owners “at any expense.” Sue Kempf closed the chapter by stating that the Council had already decided not to put the measure before voters this November.

The Best of Laguna Verified:
Tax on bars & restaurants

The City has studied several possible revenue measures, including changes to the business-license tax paid by bars and restaurants. In July, however, the Council unanimously decided not to put a new revenue measure before voters this November, while potentially doing further study toward a possible 2028 measure.

How do we solve tourist over-saturation?

The question of “over tourism” produced considerably more daylight between the candidates:

Q: Millions of visitors to Laguna every year result in both physical and fiscal impacts on Laguna Beach: near gridlock-like traffic, mountains of trash, high levels of DUIs and the city’s finances are strained to fund visitor related costs that far exceed visitor related revenue. What specifically should we do to better manage tourism?

Ashley Cintas again started with the numbers. She questioned whether Laguna is making tourism decisions using sufficiently current information and called for better data on who is visiting, what those visitors contribute economically and what they actually cost the City.

Laura Parisi also called for better data, arguing that the City needs a clearer accounting of what tourism actually costs Laguna compared with the revenue visitors generate before deciding what additional measures are warranted.

Alex Rounaghi focused more heavily on enforcement. While the City is increasing police, lifeguard and other public-safety staffing, he noted that actual enforcement is key.

Sue Kempf pointed to measures already underway to manage visitor impacts, including additional public-safety efforts, more numerous trash receptacles, regular beach enforcement and ongoing discussions about how the City can monitor beaches at night.

Karen Martin raised the broader issue of “carrying capacity” studies needed – how many people Laguna’s beaches, roads and infrastructure can reasonably accommodate.

Nick Aronoff reached for another tourism driver altogether: social media. A viral post can send large numbers of people toward a particular beach or location regardless of anything Laguna’s own tourism organization is doing, and he suggested we begin working with those companies to monitor and “pull down the throttle” on these potentially harmful posts. He also noted that Laguna Park Rangers are stretched very thin across large expanses of parks and beaches.

Edward Bayuk offered one of the evening’s more unusual proposals. Pointing to the disgruntled South Laguna residents who say new parking meters will just drive traffic and crowds into their neighborhoods, he suggested we do what other tourist-laden cities have done: meter virtually every public parking space in Laguna, including those in front of residences. Each household would receive three placards for residents and their guests; visitors otherwise would pay.

Joy Berry offered perhaps the night’s sharpest departure from Laguna’s current tourism strategy: stop marketing the city. Pointing to Carmel, where she owns two hospitality properties, Berry told the audience:

“Our City Council told our Visitor’s Bureau to stop marketing.”

This drew quite a reaction from the listening audience. She suggested Laguna consider a similar approach, directing visitor bureau budget resources, instead, toward managing the visitors already coming rather than attracting more.

The Best of Laguna verified:
Carmel’s “stop marketing our town” plan

On June 2, 2026, Carmel-by-the-Sea did remove nearly $300,000 in See Monterey tourism-marketing funding from its budget amid resident concerns about overtourism. But on July 6, the Council voted 4–1 to restore the funding, while fast-tracking a study of visitor impacts.

Mark Orgill pointed toward a different approach already underway in Laguna. He reminded the audience that Visit Laguna Beach now contributes $500,000 annually to the City toward downtown improvements and services, including public safety.

The Best of Laguna verified:
Visit Laguna’s $500,000 contribution

That $500,000 contribution has some important history
The $500,000 annual stewardship contribution grew out of a November 2024 agreement between Visit Laguna Beach and the City of Laguna Beach, reached amid intense resident criticism of tourism marketing and visitor impacts. The agreement expressly designates the funds for a “Downtown Improvement Special Revenue Fund” allocated exclusively to infrastructure, the Promenade, sidewalks, parking, signage, amenities, beautification, events and public safety measures.

Under that agreement, Visit Laguna Beach’s continuing annual contributions were explicitly contingent upon renewal of the Laguna Beach Tourism Marketing District, which funds its operations.

Seven months later, following months of public feedback and packed hearings in May and June 2025, the City Council ultimately voted 5–0 to renew the Tourism District for another 10 years.

Wildfire: Mitigation, evacuation and $100 million from Edison

Village Laguna drew a direct comparison between Laguna Beach and Pacific Palisades:

Q: Pacific Palisades is very like Laguna Beach – similar population, adjacent to open space, and only three ways in and out. In spite of preparations like much of the Palisades having underground utilities, the Palisades was devastated by wildfire with massive loss of property and significant loss of life. What more should we be doing to avoid such a catastrophe?

Here, the differences weren’t so much about whether Laguna should prepare as what the next stage of preparedness should be. Some candidates concentrated on the mitigation infrastructure Laguna is already building. Others asked whether evacuation, development and communications systems are prepared for the day all of that infrastructure is tested at once.

Ashley Cintas offered one of the night’s more concrete operational suggestions: stress-test Laguna’s entire evacuation plan under realistic conditions. Does it actually work?

Karen Martin argued that evacuation capacity – including visitors in our town at the time of a fire – should play a larger role in planning and development decisions. She also pointed to use of private pools for added water supply.

Edward Bayuk turned to his business acumen in emergency communications and technology to argue for stronger communications systems that have been adopted elsewhere, along with additional technology, including heat-sensing drones.

Nick Aronoff might have provided the most surprising answer by stating that the City Council should be commended for their “great work” in all the fire mitigation they’re doing.

Sue Kempf concentrated on mitigation already underway noting that Laguna currently maintains 27 fuel-modification zones adjacent to neighborhoods and has two operational HeloPod helicopter-refilling systems, with funding secured for another intended to improve coverage in South Laguna.

And Kempf revealed another significant project Monday night: Southern California Edison has just recently committed to approximately $100 million in utility undergrounding work in high-fire-risk areas of Laguna Beach.

The Best of Laguna verified:
Edison’s commitment to undergrounding in Laguna Beach.

While the project has not yet been formally announced by the City, Kempf confirmed to BOL Tuesday that the Edison commitment follows roughly 18 to 24 months of the City’s meetings with the utility.

Work is expected to begin next year, potentially around July 2027 in roughly $100 million of in-kind work.

Planned areas include Bluebird Canyon, the site of last year’s Rancho Fire; The Ranch Laguna Beach area; Canyon Acres; Phillips Lane off the 133 near Laguna Canyon Foundation; Moulton to Old Top of the World; and El Toro Road as it approaches Laguna Canyon Road.

Affordable Housing doesn’t fit neatly into a yes-or-no box

The second lightning round produced one of the evening’s more confusing exchanges:

Q: Do you support the city providing $4.2M to create 28 affordable housing units at the Neighborhood Congregational Church property?

The candidates’ answers went in several directions in part because the financing described in the question isn’t quite how the project is structured.

Sue Kempf was the first to challenge the question. “If the question is $4.2 million, I’d say no,” she said, pointing out that the City provided a $2.5 million match to the state’s $2.5 million grant. She supported that decision.

Other candidates responded to different aspects of the question – the need for affordable housing, state mandates, the number of units being produced, whether a mixed-income project might have been preferable and whether other financing structures could have produced more housing. In other words, the lightning round never really produced a clean comparison among the nine candidates on this issue.

The Best of Laguna verified:
The Neighborhood Congregational Church financing

This one needs some unpacking. The Neighborhood Congregational Church project, being developed with Related California, calls for 28 income-restricted affordable residences plus one manager’s unit.

The total approved financial assistance is actually closer to $6.7 million, but that figure includes state grant funding, City funds, fee waivers and loans – not a single $6.7 million cash expenditure by the City.

The package includes a $2.5 million state housing grant, a $2.5 million City match from housing-related funds, approximately $740,000 in development-fee waivers and two smaller gap loans associated with public parking spaces and deferred infrastructure work. The overall project is expected to cost approximately $37 million.

That distinction matters because some social-media discussion has incorrectly inflated the City’s arrangement with the state and the developer.

Candidates differed over whether that level of public support was justified, exposing the larger question Laguna will continue confronting: how much public subsidy is reasonable to create permanently restricted affordable housing in one of California’s most expensive real-estate markets?

Nine candidates, nine unique questions

The forum shifted gears when Village Laguna posed a different question to each candidate.

Nick Aronoff:
Q: The St. Catherine’s property continues to be under-utilized and taxpayers are scratching their heads about why after four years since the purchase it’s still underutilized. What are your thoughts on how this property could be best utilized?

Aronoff said the property remains underutilized and needs investment and activation, but opposed selling it off.

Mark Orgill:
Q: Visit Laguna has been either accused, or credited depending on your perspective, with increasing tourism, and especially day trippers. You negotiated a 10-year agreement to change the spending of Tourist Marketing District dollars to support a Stewardship Program. Residents asked for specific objectives and metrics. What hard data do you have that shows how this is working?

Orgill acknowledged that some measures – including whether visitor education actually reduces trash – are difficult to quantify at this point, that the organization has “come a long way and it had ot be dealt with. I believe that anything can be better managed.”

Joy Berry:
Q: You successfully sued the city to prevent them from approving building on grades over 45%. The city appealed, which is still pending. What led you, personally, to take on the city on this issue?

Berry cited geologic instability, runoff, the blocking of emergency access and wildfire safety, arguing that the City should follow protections already contained in its General Plan.

Sue received one of the most pointed questions of the evening –
Sue Kempf:
Q: Forest Avenue has since the 1920s been the city’s main commercial throughfare, providing essential goods and services, curbside parking; and framed by its signature eucalyptus trees. The trees are gone, lower Forest Avenue permanently demolished and the Promenade project was late, over-budget and for some, the results are underwhelming. As a leading advocate for this project, what do you think could have been done differently?

Kempf challenged the cost premise in the question, stating that the project is actually under budget by almost $500,000. She added, “The trees were a concern for us. They were part of the plan all along but this is an old town, and we found we had a lot going on under the street. We have better infrastructure there now.” What she might have done differently, she said, was hold more individual meetings with business owners and the arts groups.

Karen Martin:
Q: Under the banner of increased efficiency for the design review process, the City is routinely granting variances to residential building proposals and reducing resident’s [sic] opportunities to appeal decisions. How do you strike the balance between approving building proposals with the rights of current residents for privacy and view protection?

Martin, an urban planner with more than 30 years in the field, was asked about changes intended to make Design Review more efficient. She questioned the wisdom of revising Laguna’s zoning code before completing an update of the General Plan and said the City’s recent “efficiency” efforts may be creating additional problems rather than solving them.

Edward Bayuk:
Q: Laguna Beach is known for its historic resources, featuring many homes and cottages from the early 20th Century. And yet, many of these resources are being threatened by new property owners who want to demolish these resources and replace them with much larger homes that are out-of-character for the neighborhoods. What is your position?

Bayuk advocated greater use of preservation tools such as the Mills Act and the City getting more involved in educating and encouraging new or existing homeowners to apply for the Mills Act to keep the original character of the home. He pointed to his own 1934 home (owned for 25 years), which he said he intentionally kept within its historic footprint.

Alex’s question returned to the Promenade –
Alex Rounaghi
Q: If you had known in advance of the saltwater intrusion impacting the trees on the Promenade, would you have gone along with the plan that you approved?

He defended the decision and pointed to the professional and public-safety information available to the Council at the time.

Laura Parisi
Q: Our city is looking at budget deficits and is facing hard questions about where to cut expenses and where to raise revenue. What ideas do you have to bring greater fiscal responsibility to City Council decision-making?

The longtime City Treasurer called for more frequent financial reporting, including monthly information that would allow the Council and public to better track revenues and expenditures and the introduction of AI for some of the reporting and coding.

Ashley Cintas:
Q: The financial contribution to the city government from Laguna businesses is primarily sales tax which comprises less than 4% of the total city budget. Yet, Laguna’s millions of visitors create costs for the city government far in excess of the revenue from sales tax. What can the city and its businesses do to help better cover those costs?

Cintas, who owns the Laguna restaurant, Oto Sushi, offered another route to increasing City revenue: fill the vacant storefronts we’ve already got.

Cintas noted that Laguna’s retail vacancy rate is 8.3%, substantially higher than recent Orange County retail vacancy benchmarks of approximately 3.8% to 4.5%. The Laguna figure includes the 34,478-square-foot former Gelson’s property – closed for nearly two and a half years.

Cintas argued that filling existing vacancies PLUS recapturing a solid portion of the spending now leaving Laguna by its own residents should come before asking residents or businesses to pay more in taxes. It was more than a “no” to another tax. It was an argument for growing the City’s existing revenue base instead.

The Best of Laguna verified:
Laguna’s retail vacancy rate

Laguna’s retail vacancy rate is unusually high compared with Orange County. A City-commissioned Kosmont analysis put Laguna Beach retail vacancy at 8.3%, up from 3.7% in 2022. This was confirmed again in late 2024. By comparison, current Q2 2026 commercial real-estate reports put Orange County retail vacancy between 3.8% and 4.5%, depending on the research firm and methodology.
That makes Ashley’s “double the Orange County average” statement quite defensible: 8.3% is more than double the 3.8% Kidder Mathews figure and about 84% higher than Cushman & Wakefield’s 4.5%.

And then the Treasurer changed the subject

Perhaps the most consequential statement Monday night didn’t come in response to a Village Laguna question at all. It arrived during Parisi’s closing remarks.

Parisi has served as Laguna Beach’s elected City Treasurer since 1999. She told the audience that she is running for Council in part because she believes Council and City management have made it “increasingly difficult” for her to perform the duties voters elected her to perform.

Then she got specific.

Parisi said one of her responsibilities is making required interest and principal payments on assessment-district bonds using funds collected from property owners.

She alleged that, although the City had received the appropriate payments from the County, there was insufficient cash in City accounts to make required payments.

Parisi said she discovered the issue during the second week of July and reported it in writing to City management on July 25 and again Aug. 10.

She said she also consulted with bond counsel, the assessment administrator and fiscal agent and was ultimately forced to set next year’s levy without being able to determine whether some bonds could have been paid early – something she said potentially could have reduced the levy for residents.

Her explanation for seeking a Council seat was equally direct:

“I haven’t been able to resolve the issues from the inside, so I am running for Council, in part, to restore the functioning of the elected Treasurer position to what you expected of it when you voted for me.”

Those are substantial allegations from the City’s sitting elected Treasurer.

BOL has asked the City for a response and will update this story when one is received.

One forum down

Monday night’s forum didn’t neatly divide nine candidates into competing camps.

It did, however, begin revealing how they approach problems.

Kempf frequently pointed to City work already underway. Cintas repeatedly approached questions through data, operations and measurable outcomes. Rounaghi emphasized expanded enforcement and existing government mechanisms and progress. Berry was more willing to question whether Laguna should continue some existing policies at all.

Martin repeatedly connected individual issues to larger land-use and planning questions. Bayuk brought both historic preservation and some unconventional infrastructure ideas to the table. Aronoff raised issues ranging from better use of City property to the impact of social media on visitor demand.

Orgill largely defended or sought to improve existing City programs, while Parisi – initially the candidate most firmly planted in the numbers – ended the evening by raising an entirely new question about the City’s financial operations.

But after Monday night, Laguna voters have something they didn’t have before: a first look at not only what these nine candidates think … but how they think.

One forum isn’t enough to decide a nine-person race.

The next candidate forum is already on the calendar. KXFM will host its “Good Luck Potluck” on Tuesday, Sept. 8 at Neighborhood Congregational Church, bringing together candidates for both Laguna Beach City Council and School Board – 14 candidates in all. While all have been invited, not all have RSVPed as of publication. The potluck begins at 5:30 p.m., with the forum at 6 p.m.

Fair Game By Tom Johnson – Featured in Stu News

Posted on

New superintendent is leading the charge of the school year, while board faces a records request from the District Attorney’s office
Coutesy of Fair Game in StuNews.com

There seem to be two paths our school district is currently heading down. First, we’re still in the throes of a new school year where excitement, new clubs and organizations, sports teams, etc. add to the excitement on local campuses.

We also have a new superintendent who I’m excited to meet, who appears to be doing all the right things, and someone who’s been impressive so far.

At the same time, the district’s board is still dealing with some old baggage. It’s the same old same old, dating back to the time leading up to and immediately following former Superintendent Dr. Jason Glass’ departure and the subsequent hiring of Superintendent Dr. Don Austin.

Here’s what’s up. Avery T. Harrison, a Senior Deputy District Attorney assigned to the Orange County District Attorney’s Special Prosecutions Unit, has submitted a detailed Public Records Act request to Laguna Beach Unified School District concerning the departure of Dr. Glass and the arrival of Superintendent Dr. Austin.

Harrison’s request is unusually specific. It seeks communications between LBUSD administrators, HR, board members, board attorneys and Glass concerning his mutual separation agreement and proposed separation date from March 1-June 1. It separately seeks communications concerning Austin’s availability, potential start dates, salary and benefits negotiations, proposed contracts and any authorization, approval or discussion of him as a candidate.

It also seeks records of any interviews or conversations with Austin between March 1 and May 14, as well as communications and drafts surrounding the district’s May 14 press release announcing Austin’s hiring.

Finally, the OCDA wants copies of previous Public Records Act requests and responses concerning either Glass’ separation or Austin’s hiring since March 1.

The requested dates and categories focus closely on the chronology and decision-making process surrounding when Dr. Glass’ departure was contemplated and/or negotiated, as well as when the discussions with Austin began. Who authorized those discussions? When were terms negotiated? And how much had been decided before the May 14 public announcement?

The records could also shed additional light on potential Brown Act/open-meeting/closed-session concerns previously raised in multiple citizen complaints.

Although nothing about the existence or status of any investigation can be determined from this request, the fact that the requester works in the OCDA’s Special Prosecutions Unit makes the request noteworthy given the office making it.

Is someone in trouble? There’s no way to tell from the records request alone.

Race Is Set for November Election for Council and Ballot Measure

Posted on

By Alicia Venter | LB Indy

Laguna Beach voters will see a diverse lineup this November, with nine candidates — including three incumbents — running for three open seats on city council. The Nov. 3 election will also include a vote for Ballot Measure E, a voter initiative to implement term limits for city council members.

This year’s candidates, as they will appear in on the ballot following the Aug. 13 randomized alphabet drawing by the secretary of state, are Sue Kempf (incumbent), Ashley Cintas, Laura Parisi, Mark Orgill (incumbent), Nick Aronoff, Edward Bayuk, Joy Berry, Alex Rounaghi (incumbent) and Karen Martin.

Ballot Measure E will have voters select “yes” or “no” for 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?”

This measure was qualified and placed on the ballot via City Council Resolution #25.100 after citizen proponents gathered enough verified signatures. Under current city law, there is no term limits for council members. If approved, this ordinance would enact local municipal term limits to prevent council members from serving indefinitely. Council members would only be able to serve a combined total of two four-year consecutive terms, or eight consecutive years, but could serve again after a lapse of two years.

The remaining election timeline is :

  • Sept. 24:  First Day of Mailing Voter Information Guides

  • Oct. 5: First Day of Mailing Vote by Mail Ballots

  • Oct. 5:  First Day of Early Voting at the Registrar of Voters Office

  • Oct. 19: Last Day to Register Online to Vote

  • Oct. 24: 11-Day Vote Centers Open

  • Oct. 27: Vote by Mail Ballot Replacement Request Deadline

  • Oct. 31: 4-Day Vote Centers Open

Measure A – School Bond On Nov. 3 Election Ballot

Posted on (Updated: )

The ballot title for Measure A is as follows:
Courtesy of Ballotpedia

To repair and upgrade aging classrooms, science labs, career technology and school facilities to support college/career readiness in math, science, technology, arts, engineering, and skilled trades; and fix deteriorating roofs, plumbing, and electrical systems; shall Laguna Beach Unified School District’s measure be adopted authorizing $83 million in bonds at legal rates (without increasing current tax rates), levying $8.85 per $100,000 assessed value ($5 million annually) while bonds are outstanding, with independent audits, citizen oversight, all money locally controlled?

For more information on the LBUSD Bond Measure A- click here
For information on the Bond Measure Consideration put out July 9 – click here

 

Advacates For Laguna Residents Meeting To Save Local ER

Posted on

Providence Mission Meeting Held in Council Chambers August 20 at 4:30 p.m., Providence Mission CEO Seth Teigen presented Providence’s detailed plan responding to the Laguna Beach Task Force’s requests about the planned closing of the ER

“We recognize the hospital is going to have to look differently,” Teigen told city council. “Essentially, you can have an acute care hospital or nothing.”

Providence’s own plan tells us what that “different” hospital is supposed to become: “Urgent care and expanded outpatient medical services.” That’s not an ER. It can’t take ambulances or provide the emergency-care capabilities of an acute-care hospital. And once the ER is gone, you can’t get those minutes back.

If Mission Hospital Laguna’s ER closes, ambulances will have to travel farther — through our infamous traffic on Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road. When minutes matter, is that lost time worth the risk?

Here’s the irony:

The time it takes you to show up at today’s meeting is less than the time you could lose getting to a distant ER in a real emergency.

Cardiac, Stroke, medical emergencies
Nearly a third of Laguna Beach residents are 65 or older — among those most at risk for a heart attack or stroke. When minutes matter, urgent care can’t help cardiac arrest, stroke, brain bleed.

Car Accidents –
Any accident . . .

If our ER closes, the nearest one is 8.6 miles away — through Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road traffic. When minutes matter, urgent care can’t make up the distance or critical time lost.

Rattlesnake encounters are spiking across Orange County. Our parks and open space are confirmed hotspots. When minutes matter, urgent care can’t provide the antivenom needed.

Pills, Poisoning and OD

From a child’s medicine cabinet to a mix-up in an older adult’s pillbox, poisoning can happen in any Laguna Beach home. When minutes matter, urgent care can’t run the labs or give the antidotes needed to save lives.

Providence’s Answer to Laguna: Triage!

Laguna welcomes more than 6.5 million visitors per year. We are the DUI capital of Orange County. Accidents and emergencies are bound to happen.

Our ER also serves people throughout South Orange County. If Laguna’s ER is shut down, it means longer trips to an ER, longer waiting times to be seen, and fewer available beds.

Get Involved by emailing lagunaadvocates@duck.com
Sign the Petition To Save the ER

Term Limits and the Myth of the Council Mandate

Posted on

Ballot Measure E is a First Step to Election Reform
Courtesy of The Weiss Report on Substacks

In an ideal world, we would not need Term Limits but with the inherent advantages of incumbency and the unlimited funding from political PACs it’s needed today.

Laguna Beach City Council members like to talk about their “mandate.” It’s a useful word for anyone wielding power. It implies the public asked for this. But if you run the numbers from our recent Council elections, the mandate disappears.

A Plurality Isn’t a Mandate: Laguna Beach elects its Council members at large, and whoever gets the most votes wins a seat. But winning a plurality of votes in a multi-candidate field is a quite different from winning the backing of a majority of the electorate, and the false claim of “mandate,” that Council members lean on whenever they want to describe their agenda as reflecting “what the voters want.”

Some History: Bob Whalen received roughly 46.1% of all ballots cast in 2024. Hallie Jones received roughly 45.0%. Both fell short of majority support from the voters who turned out. Mark Orgill’s 2022 win came on just 4,359 votes. That number is not a mandate for anything. Alex Rounaghi is the clear exception: he crossed the 50% threshold outright in 2022. The only other Council members in recent history who won a majority of the vote were Rob Zur Schmiede and Kelly Boyd back in 2012. Sue Kempf’s 2022 result was close enough to that line that it needs the precise ballot denominator verified before anyone calls it a majority win.

Even if you give Kempf the benefit of the doubt and count both her and Rounaghi as majority-backed, that’s two Council members out of five. Nowhere in the current lineup do three members each carry majority support from the electorate. The bloc that controls every vote, every committee appointment, and every policy direction in Laguna Beach was not chosen by a majority of Laguna Beach voters, it was created by the council itself, after the fact.

Nobody Voted for the Coalition, or the Mayor: What the ballot never asked us is which of the five council members should govern together. Voters chose individuals, not a governing coalition. They didn’t rank preferences among competing blocs, didn’t get to signal which combination of colleagues they wanted running the city, and had no say at all in who would sit as mayor. That decision, arguably the most consequential one the Council makes about itself happens entirely after the election, behind closed doors, among the members, with zero direct input from the public that elected them.

This isn’t a problem unique to Laguna Beach; it’s baked into at-large council elections everywhere. But it does mean that the use of “mandate” needs to be retired from Council rhetoric.

What Laguna Beach has is a set of individually elected officials, several of whom fell short of majority support, who then formed a working majority behind closed doors. In this case there is a 5-member majority. That is how they vote. That’s not illegitimate. It’s just not a mandate and treating it like one insulates incumbents from a quite simple check: an actual expiration date.

Term Limits Are a Step towards Election Reform: If the electoral math doesn’t produce a clean mandate, the least the system can do is guarantee some turnover, regular chances for the public to reshuffle the deck, bring in people with new perspectives, and prevent any one plurality-elected bloc from calendaring the city’s future indefinitely. Term limits don’t fix the structural quirks of at-large plurality voting. But they put a ceiling on how long an unmandated majority can keep renewing itself.

Incumbency in a small town like Laguna Beach has its own advantages. There is name recognition, donor relationships, control of the dais, photo opportunities, free media coverage, control of the calendar, and support from special interest PACS, who expect and receive favors.

Much of that advantage was unearned, it was simply accumulated in office. Term limits are the one structural reform that directly counteracts that accumulation, without requiring us to rewrite how elections themselves work. Instead of allowing coalitions to form behind closed doors after an election, this forces those alliances into the open. It requires officials to build their coalitions publicly and on a predictable schedule.

Laguna Beach voters deserve a Council that has to keep earning its authority, not one that can point to a plurality win in one cycle and coast on the fiction of a mandate for the next decade. Term limits won’t solve every problem with how this city is governed.

But the are a needed first step for election reform, and one that is overdue.

To donate and support term limits, or for more information on Ballot Measure E please visit: www.nimblegov.org

George’s Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

 

Promenade Update – Mid-August 2026

Posted on

It’s getting to the latter part of August, and time for another Promenade update.  You’ll see these things happening this week and next:

  • A bunch of brick arrived Monday and is being installed alongside the also-arrived storm drain grates.  Some of this work will occur at night, starting near Tuvalu Home and headed towards PCH.  This will result in a more finished look, as well as the removal of the plywood and some of the loose decomposed granite (DG) along the sides.  Here’s a photo from Tuesday morning:
  • The Glenneyre / Forest intersection is taking shape, with some new trees planted Monday and the irrigation going in.  Soon, concrete will be laid down that will be the base of the Crazy Quilt Brick pattern all along the intersection.
  • Lantern-style lighting went up in the trees on the edges – the Glenneyre lantern lights are lit at night, but the PCH side is waiting for final power.  Which is pending.
  • A writer asked me previously whether the big (ugly?) concrete blocks at the PCH/Promenade side will stay there – no, they won’t.  New bollards are in place behind them, and those provide the right level of safety without the concrete blocks.  The cool Bartel Cubes that once covered the concrete blocks were removed for safe-keeping and will be returned on the Promenade soon.
  • Speakers and the long-awaited permanent, fixed-in-place umbrellas should be installed within this next 2 week period.

A few things may trail past Labor Day – the final improvements to the crosswalks at Glenneyre and Forest, and the PCH / Promenade intersection improvements.  These are trailing in part because of SCE’s and Caltrans’ timing.  Once the SCE improvements are in, the area will have full power, including to the fountain.  Also, some tree grates that will allow permeable surfaces right up to the bases of some of the Eucalyptus, and some surface-level utility box lids that also will be covered with brick, are delayed in the supply chain (also slated for September delivery).  These should not be too intrusive to install.

Thanks as always for folks’ patience as we start to close this project out.