Category: City News

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.

The Cost Shift Hiding in LBUSD’s Budget

Posted on

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

By Erika Hennon Rule
Courtesy of A Public Record for Laguna schools

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

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

Employee benefits go down.

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

That is what sent me down the rabbit hole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What solution is the board willing to own?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal ADA complaint filed over graduation relocation

Posted on

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

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

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

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

The future of democracy in Laguna Beach: We need to protect it

Posted on (Updated: )

A recent opinion piece published Sept. 6 titled Concerning City Council raised important concerns about the current state of governance in our city. It highlighted troubling examples of power concentration, such as Councilman Bob Whalen’s lengthy tenure and repeated leadership roles, as well as School Board President Jan Vickers’ decades-long service without rotation. The piece makes a strong case for why term limits are essential to preventing entrenched authority and ensuring more democratic representation.

As someone whose family has been part of Laguna Beach for over 100 years, I agree wholeheartedly. My grandkids now attend Laguna Beach schools, and I feel a growing responsibility to ensure that the governance we pass down to the next generation is open, transparent, and truly serves the community. Unfortunately, what we see today in both the city council and the school board is leadership that either serves special interests or avoids accountability by delegating too much authority to staff. This not only distances them from the difficult decisions they were elected to make but also erodes the trust that residents should have in their leaders.

When decisions are made behind closed doors, and the will of the people is overshadowed by special interests, it creates a dangerous disconnect between the community and those in power. Residents feel unheard, marginalized, and some end up leaving. This culture fosters disengagement and leads to a diminished sense of community, as described in the recent article.

What makes this situation even more alarming is that once leaders manipulate democratic processes to retain control, they often take further steps to tighten their grip. As public dissent grows, leadership may resort to more exclusionary practices—such as banning Zoom participation—to silence opposition and avoid scrutiny. These actions, as pointed out in the recent piece, are symptomatic of a leadership culture that leans toward authoritarianism.

If we allow these patterns to continue, we risk handing down a legacy of distrust, disengagement, and authoritarian-leaning leadership to future generations. My grandkids—and all of Laguna Beach’s children—deserve better. They deserve a government that listens, that is accountable, and that represents the diverse needs of the entire community.

The November election offers us a chance to restore good governance. We can elect leaders who prioritize transparency and accountability, not just maintaining power. Implementing term limits, as suggested in the recent opinion piece, would be a crucial first step toward achieving this. Let’s also ensure that we support candidates who serve the people, not special interests.

By taking these actions, we can heal the political divide in Laguna Beach and set a positive example for future generations.

Mike Marriner Sr., Laguna Beach

Laguna Beach Spills More Sewage Into Ocean Than Anywhere Else in OC!

Posted on (Updated: )

Article in the Voice of OC

If this 2023 top poo-luters recognition doesn’t uncover the watered down
priority and negligence of our aging sewer infrastructure system by public
officials what does? LB property and business owners should be outraged.
Ask yourselves and your city officials:

WHY have Bob Whalen and Sue Kempf the Mayor and Mayor Pro-Tem
position-swapping duo for a decade not prioritized this infrastructure
problem? Especially since they have served as our water representatives
for years. They get paid extra to attend water agency meetings and protect
our community and coastal environment.

And WHY have they focused on catering to investors/developers,
proposing multi-million dollar parking structures at resident taxpayers
expense and buying expensive private properties (St. Catherines School
$23 M and Ti Amo Restaurant for $2.7 M) that we clearly didn’t want or
need?

Wasn’t this hefty $1.5 M Fine by the State Water Agency in 2021 for a raw
sewage spill into the ocean enough to wake them up?

Other News Stories on Local Oil Spills:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/press_room/press_releases/2021/pr06092021_r9_lagu
na_beach_enforcement_06052021.pdf https://
The Patch:

Water Expert Roger Butow Guest Opinions:
The Patch – Laguna Beach 95,000 Gallon Sewer Spill How You Can Help
The Patch – Laguna Beach’s Bob Whalen Lost Clueless Over Chronic Sewage Spills
The Mirror – Laguna Beach reopens after almost 100,000 gallons of sewage leaked into water

Judie Mancuso Guest Opinions:
Letter: Laguna’s ocean water quality is a public priority

A Message from Councilman Weiss

Posted on (Updated: )

Councilman Weiss and Isman censured for disclosing closed sessions items to public –
Story in the LB Indy here
Story in the Voice of OC here
—-
For more News and updates from Councilmember Weiss can be found regularly on his website at https://www.georgeweisscitycouncil.org/. Check back weekly.

Hello Fellow Residents,

The March 9th City Council Meeting considered a full agenda of items affecting residents. Here’s a summary; For more details these items go to my homepage:

Laguna Beach Neighborhood And Environmental Protection Plan Passes 5-0
This wide-ranging piece of legislation provides solid programs for improving the quality of life for residents and the community.

Proclamation Recognizes Arnold Hanno’s 99th Birthday;
Mr. Hanno sponsored one of the first ballot initiatives in California history.

Laguna Canyon Foundation Request For Naming Rights Agreement Passes 5-0
To acknowledge a one million dollar donation, the Council voted unanimously to approve naming the Laguna Canyon Foundation headquarters site “The Michael and Tricia Berns Preserve.”

Trolley Service To Return, 2021 Summer Parking Management Plan Passes 5-0
Good news: The trolleys are likely to be back in operation along Coast Highway and into Laguna Canyon Road starting on June 25.

City Council Censures Peter Blake – Vote 4-0
The City Council voted 4-0 (Councilman Blake abstaining) to censure Mr. Blake for violations of the City’s Rules of Decorum and Civility.

Thanks and feel free to email me or call me to discuss anything that migjt be on your mind,

George
949-295-0832

—

Hello Fellow Residents,

I am posting legislation being considered and decisions made by City Council on my new website. www.georgeweisscitycouncil.org

It’s worth taking a look at for a quick recap of some of the key issues currently being discussed at City Council meetings and for my position on those topics. It also has some quick links to City Government website pages and a current events story on the proposed Rivian Theater.