Category: City Government

$100,000 Walks Into a Laguna Election

Posted on

Courtesy of NimbleGov.org


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NimbleGov Team

The Weiss Report Voter Guide for City Council

Posted on

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

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

Dear Readers,

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

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

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

Where do they stand together

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

· Term limits. All three support Measure E.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joy Berry: the rules apply to everyone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laura Parisi: the financial expert who has been shut out

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

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

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

· Monthly revenue and expense reports to the Council.

· A professional audit committee.

· Staffing based on department audits and results.

· No new taxes or bonds to cover operating deficits.

· Safety and infrastructure first.

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

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

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

Ashley Cintas: plans, timelines, and results

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

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

· Monthly budget-to-actual reports.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where they differ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Residents are left out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for voters

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

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

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

George Weiss

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

The Mayor Who Forgot What He Said

Posted on

Courtesy of The Weiss Report

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

Dear Readers,

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

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

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

Term Limits: Good for Sacramento, Not for Laguna

Fine for Washington and Sacramento, but not for Laguna.

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

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

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

What He Said, and What the Record Shows

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Watch: April 2026 · Watch: Dec. 2023

3. Left residents out of the Promenade focus groups.

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

Watch the clip

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

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

Watch the clip

5. The Dupuis settlement as a business decision.

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

Watch the clip

6. A $30 million figure with no source.

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

Watch the clip

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

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

Watch the clip

8. “Nefarious accusations.”

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

Watch the clip

9. “Less restrictions the better.”

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

Watch the clip

10. “Coney Island.”

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

Watch the clip

Why This Matters for Measure E

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

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

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

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

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

$100K PAC Backs Laguna Beach Council Incumbents

Posted on

by Alicia Venter
Courtesy of the Laguna Beach Independent

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


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

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

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

  • consulting ($3,333)

  • mailers ($7,420)

  • newspaper and digital ads ($3,764)

  • state mailers ($5,970)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

The names for this November’s ballot listing …

Posted on (Updated: )

The names for this November’s ballot listing Laguna Beach City Council candidates is growing, with still several days available for nomination, ending at 5 p.m. this Friday, Aug. 7.
Courtesy Fair Game Tom Johnson in Stu News

So far, all three incumbents have pulled papers, including Mayor Mark Orgill and Councilmembers Alex Rounaghi and Sue Kempf. Kempf and Orgill have also both returned their respective paperwork, becoming officially qualified.

Of the challengers, Nick Aronoff is also officially “in.”

Then there are the newly announced candidates in the last several days that include Edward Bayuk, Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas and Karen Martin.

Martin brings experience as a land use principal with Pacific Planning Group; Cintas is a restaurateur with Oto Sushi; Berry has Silver Lining Hospitality and Bayuk’s credentials point to being a “consultant to Retail Wholesale Energy Industry Oil/Gas/Electrical & High Frequency Emergency Communication and Real Estate Management.”

It might’ve been easier to say what Bayuk isn’t involved in, but that’s a story for another day.

LB PAC “Citizens for Laguna’s Future (CFLF)” FINED $4,000 by FPPC!

Posted on

LBCHAT Viewers –  it has come to our attention that local PAC “Citizens for Laguna’s Future” was fined for inaccurate and unreported donations in accordance with mandated reporting guidelines. 

Notice: CFLF mandatory reported 460 forms are included below. The PAC’s purpose relates to political candidates and ballot measures.Their 2026 focus states opposition to the upcoming Term Limit ballot measure on November 3, 2026. CFLF 2022 Founder and Treasurer was Glenn Gray. The 2026, Treasurers are Barbara Bowler and Mary Clifford. 

Here’s the backstory and explanation on PAC CFLF history shared with LBCHAT for your review. Please feel free to give us feedback. Thank you. 

# # # 

The PAC Citizens for Laguna’s Future (CFLF) organized in 2022 to oppose the ballot initiative known as Measure Q.  Measure Q was trying to create rules that would have forced any large commercial projects (plus other commercial projects that exceeded certain triggers), to go before Laguna Beach voters for approval.  The developer/Chamber of Commerce special interests organized CFLF under Treasurer Glenn Grey in opposition to Measure Q. 

Laguna Residents First (LRF) was the PAC behind Measure Q.  They worked to collect the necessary validated signatures of Laguna Beach voters (10% of the total registered voters) to qualify the imitative for the November 8 2022 general election. 

The Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) is a California entity which sets rules for elections.  There are very specific rules dictating disclosure of donors and expenditures. As the date of the election nears, the FPPC mandates that PACs immediately report when they collect donations of $5000 or more in any 24 hour period. This is meant to provide all election participants with visibility about how money is coming-in and going-out of PACs.  There are also periodic reports required by the FPPC. Typically 90, 60 and 30 days out via form 460. These periodic reports simply allow for Apples to Apples comparisons of income and expenditures by PACs and Candidates.

In the run-up to the November 2022 general election, CFLF failed to report several large-money donations it collected.  The effect of this was to blindside the opposition.  For example, on 8/3/2022, CFLF received a large donation of $19,800 from the Laguna Beach Chamber of Commerce. FPPC rules mandated that such a donation be immediately reported within 24hours via form 497. This would have given everyone an idea about the large amounts being collected by this PAC.  However, even though CFLF employed expensive campaign consultants, no timely 497s were filed for several large donations.  The public only became aware of these donations through the periodic 460 filings.  In this case, the $19,800 donation was only reported in the 460 report for the period ending Sept 24Sept2022. These were due by 29Sept2022, but CFLF submitted theirs 5 days late. So a large donation of $19,800 was only “discovered” on October 4 2022, over 2 months late.

Bear in mind too, the CFLF juggernaut was bringing in lots of large donations hand over fist. In a span of a bit over 4 months they had collected more than $222,000 and spent over $207,000. This is in comparison to LRF’s grass roots raising and spending of approximately $78,000 ($20,000 was spent prior to qualification to get the ballot measure onto the ballot but this spend is different). FPPC rules are specifically aimed at shining a spotlight on large amounts of money being spent in elections. Its only when everybody plays by the rules, can we help prevent shenanigans from undermining confidence in elections.

This author scrutinized the 460 filings of CFLF in the run-up to the November 2022 election and thereby discovered several very large donations that were never reported as required. The author notified the FPPC on 10/6/2022 and filed a sworn complaint with the details of these donations as could be discerned from the 460 filings. The complaint was assigned #COM-10062022-03357.  After investigating the complaint, the FPPC assigned case number 2023-0009 to the file (you can search the FPPC Complaints website to see details). Finally, after almost 3.5 years, the FPPC felt the many infractions were serious enough to levy a $4000 fine against CFLF.  This is quite extraordinary – typically, a 1st infraction will only result in a formal warning letter. 

Related Items Viewed Below:
Citizens for Lagunas Future_Complaint

Citizens for Lagunas Future (CFLF) June-Dec 2025

Citizens for Lagunas Future (CLFL) 2026 July 460 (highlight in red the $4,000 FINE to the state)

LBCHAT PAC Page with Updated CLFL 460. 

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

Posted on (Updated: )

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

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

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

The Soft Launch of a Resident Tax Hike

Posted on

The Truth Behind the “Financial Emergency”
Coutesy of The Weiss Report

City Manager Dave Kiff’s recent column, “2026: A Big Year Begins,” appeared in Stu News and Friday’s Laguna Beach Independent. Readers should view this column as a “soft launch” of significant policy shifts coming to Laguna Beach.

The column is also a strategic communication piece designed to frame the narrative before the formal legislative process begins. The City Council is the legislative body responsible for making policy decisions. Why then isn’t the Mayor the one speaking to the public about new taxes and major issues for voters?

There is a reason for the City Manager to lead the charge instead of our elected officials:
· Pre-emptive Framing: Mr. Kiff is framing the tax not as “more spending”—which it is—but as a necessity to prevent the decay of “must-have” services like fire protection and fuel modification.

· Agenda Setting: The primary intent here is agenda-setting. By bundling a sales tax increase with popular or “emergency” needs—such as wildfire safety, seismic upgrades for fire stations, and “home rule”—the City Manager is attempting to create a “package deal” that is difficult for the public to oppose.

· Political Shielding. It’s An Election Year: By taking the lead on the proposal, the City Manager provides a layer of political cover for the City Council, especially those running for re-election. If the public reacts poorly, “city staff” takes the heat. If the proposal is well received, the Council can simply “respond to staff recommendations.”

Crossing the Financial Rubicon: At the recent City Council Strategic Planning meeting, we discovered that the city’s expenses have exceeded revenues for the last two years. The city is in financial hot water and claims it needs more revenue.

This is happening despite General Fund revenues climbing from $61.7 million in 2015-16 to $95.6 million in 2025-26. That represents a 55% increase in revenue over the last ten years, and yet we are still running deficits.

Why can’t the city live within its means? Why has city staff size increased by 35% over the last decade, (a major cause of increased spending) even though the population of Laguna has declined?

City Managers execute policies established by the elected officials of the City Council and runs the day-to-day operations of the city; City Managers do not initiate or sell policy ideas to the public. If you get the chance, please read Mr. Kiff’s column and feel free to email him as he invites.

Or, better yet, email the city council with your reaction to this tax proposal at: citycouncil@lagunabeachcity.net

Strategic Abandonment:

Posted on

The Engineered Collapse of Laguna Beach Healthcare
Courtesy of Laguna Unmasked

In January 2026, Providence Mission Hospital CEO Seth Teigen stood before the Laguna Beach City Council and delivered a grim prognosis: the local hospital’s emergency room and acute care services were “not part of the long-term plan”. The culprit, according to Providence? The state’s 2030 seismic safety deadline. Teigen framed the closure as a financial inevitability, citing a $350 million price tag to retrofit the 1959 facility.

But a forensic analysis of capital investments, service logs, and regulatory filings reveals a different reality. The facility is not closing because it failed; it is closing because it was starved.

The evidence suggests Providence did not stumble into an unsustainable facility—they engineered one. Through a decade of systematic service extraction and a refusal to invest institutional capital, the healthcare giant created the very “vacancy” it now uses to justify abandonment.

The Smoking Gun: A 57-to-1 Disparity

The most damning evidence of Providence’s intent lies in the investment ledger. Since 2016, the flow of capital into South Orange County reveals a stark strategic choice:

• Mission Viejo Campus: $762 Million

Includes a $712 million expansion (2022-2030), a new patient care tower, 100 private rooms, and state-of-the-art cardiac and neuroscience wings.

• Laguna Beach Campus: $12.5 Million

Includes an emergency department expansion (2019) funded entirely by community donations, not Providence’s capital budget.

The Ratio: 57 to 1.

For every dollar Providence spent maintaining Laguna Beach, they poured fifty-seven into Mission Viejo. When a health system invests three-quarters of a billion dollars in one site while pleading poverty regarding a satellite campus eight miles away, the message is unambiguous: the “financial constraint” is a myth. The neglect was a choice.

The Roadmap to Irrelevance

Providence argues that the Laguna Beach hospital runs with “huge vacancy”. This is technically true, but misleading. The vacancy is the result of a deliberate “hollowing out” strategy.

Since acquiring the facility, and accelerating after the 2016 merger, Providence has stripped the hospital of its vital organs. The most aggressive dismantling occurred over a mere nine-month period between late 2022 and spring 2023:

1. The Behavioral Health Purge (Sept 2022)

Providence eliminated the 38-bed Chemical Dependency Program—the hospital’s largest single unit. Unlike other services, this wasn’t moved; it was erased. Thirty-three staff members faced layoffs, and patients were redirected to facilities as far away as Torrance.

2. The “Spring Cleaning” (April–May 2023)

In a span of just 27 days, Providence relocated three core services to Mission Viejo, using corporate euphemisms like “centralization” and “optimization” to describe the cuts:

• April 27: Outpatient Physical Therapy transferred.

• May 10: Inpatient and Outpatient GI services transferred.

• May 24: Outpatient Laboratory closed.

By stripping the hospital of labs, specialists, and rehab clinics, Providence ensured that local physicians could no longer effectively admit patients to Laguna Beach. The resulting drop in patient census—the “vacancy”—was the mathematical inevitability of these decisions.

The Seismic Scapegoat

Providence points to California’s 2030 seismic compliance mandate as the primary driver for closure. However, the timeline of their decision-making contradicts this claim.

Every hospital administrator in California has known about the 2030 deadline for decades. Yet, in 2019, Providence accepted $12.5 million in donor funds to expand the Laguna Beach Emergency Department. Why expand a facility you know you cannot afford to retrofit?

Furthermore, the $712 million expansion of Mission Viejo was announced in September 2022—the exact same month they closed the Chemical Dependency unit in Laguna. This suggests the capital to fix Laguna Beach existed; it was simply allocated elsewhere. The seismic deadline is not a surprise event; it is a convenient regulatory shield for a consolidation strategy drafted years ago.

The Human Cost of “Efficiency”

CEO Teigen has promised “non-traditional healthcare models” to replace the hospital, likely referring to urgent care clinics. But urgent care cannot replace a trauma-ready Emergency Department.

The geography of Laguna Beach—a coastal enclave accessible primarily via the heavily congested Highway 133 or the Toll Road—makes the eight-mile trek to Mission Viejo dangerous in critical emergencies.

• Response Times: Fire officials warn that with only two dedicated ambulances in the city, transport times of 30+ minutes to Mission Viejo will leave Laguna Beach without local EMS coverage for hours at a time.

• Patient Safety: One resident recently reported a five-hour wait for a tendon repair, while another was left bleeding for an hour due to staffing shortages.

The Path to Survival: A Playbook for Resistance

While Providence has declared the hospital’s end, the community has identified four distinct avenues to challenge the closure and preserve critical care:

1. Regulatory Enforcement (The “2009 Agreement” Strategy)

When Mission Hospital acquired the facility in 2009, the sale required approval from the California Attorney General, conditioned on maintaining community benefits. The systematic dismantling of services—86 beds removed across four programs—may constitute a material violation of those commitments. A formal investigation by the Attorney General could force Providence to pause the closure or restore specific service levels as a condition of their nonprofit tax status.

2. The Standalone ER Battle

Providence claims California regulations make a standalone Emergency Department “infeasible” without inpatient beds. This is a policy choice, not a law of physics. Rural and remote communities often operate satellite EDs. The city can advocate for a regulatory waiver or specific legislative approval to maintain a licensed, 911-receiving ER with trauma stabilization capabilities, independent of the inpatient tower.

3. Legislative Triage

State representatives can be lobbied for immediate legislation requiring transparency before services are cut. New laws could mandate that healthcare systems disclose consolidation plans years in advance, or provide targeted seismic funding for “critical access” facilities like Laguna Beach that are geographically isolated by traffic and topography.

4. Forced Divestiture

If Providence is unwilling to invest the necessary capital, the final option is alternative ownership. The facility could be transferred to a public hospital district or a different healthcare system willing to undertake the seismic retrofits. While the $350 million cost remains a barrier, a new operator focused solely on Laguna Beach—rather than prioritizing a massive campus in Mission Viejo—might find a path to sustainability that Providence refuses to see.

Conclusion: A Manufactured Crisis

Providence Mission Hospital’s narrative is that they are reacting to market forces and regulatory burdens. The data tells a story of proactive dismantling.

They eliminated 86 beds across four major programs. They moved the profit centers (GI, Lab, Therapy) to Mission Viejo while leaving the cost centers (ER) to wither. They invested nothing from their own coffers while spending nearly a billion dollars down the road.

When the doors finally close, Providence will call it a tragedy of economics. The community should call it what it is: a successful execution of a long-term liquidation plan.

City Council Eyes a Takeover of Water District Site

Posted on

A Shocking Lack of Transparency

By George Weiss
I was shocked during last Friday’s six-hour Strategic Planning Meeting to discover an agenda item discussing the potential repurposing of the historic Laguna Beach County Water District (LBCWD) headquarters on Forest Avenue. Even more concerning, the City failed to inform Water District officials that this discussion would take place, nor did they provide notice when the topic was briefly raised at the January 27th City Council meeting. Does that bother anyone?

Historical Context & Governance For context, the LBCWD serves 80% of Laguna residents and became a city subsidiary roughly 20 years ago, with the City Council acting as its Board of Directors. The Water District is a pillar of our history, having celebrated its 100th Anniversary in 2025. It supplied water prior to the city’s 1927 incorporation—a crucial resource that allowed Laguna Beach to develop where Spanish explorers had previously avoided settling.

Why No Term Limits In Laguna Beach?

Posted on (Updated: )

Laguna Beach Residents/Voters – isn’t it time our elected’s allow us to vote on adopting City Council Term Limits?

As a resident and supporter of term limits for elected officials, I spoke at council and sent the written request below to City Officials on November 14, 2023.

Plenty of time to discuss and get it on 2024 ballot. It was ignored. Why?
~~~
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,

The discussion on adopting Term Limits has been ongoing for years in our City. While it is rare that I have agreed with Indy columnist Michael Ray, here’s one of his former column messages on the need for Council Term Limits which I and many residents supported via their public comments. https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/opinion-musings-on-the-coast-18/

Laguna Beach is one of a small number (3-5?) of cities among the 34 cities in Orange County that has not formally explored or moved to allow its voters to vote on Term Limits for its City Council Elected’s. While there are various term limit examples to review I include here one adopted by the City of San Clemente in 2020 that was overwhelmingly passed by voters.

Read About  San Clemente’s Measure BB 

Since that time many other cities and school boards have moved to establishing Term Limits, in fact, 61 Term Limit measures for publicly elected government officials in California have been adopted in recent years. See: https://ballotpedia.org/Local_term_limits_on_the_ballot.

I believe it’s time our City move forward to adopt City Council Term Limits as well. I ask that the Mayor instruct the Interim City Manager to agendize it for public discussion and determine the most expeditious way to get it before voters. While we are at it, it may be prudent to include Boards and Commissions appointments to Planning and DRB as well.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
MJ Abraham, LB Resident/Founder LBCHAT
~~~
I continue to ask our city officials – Why No Term Limits? Voters, you should too.
If you agree, please email LB City Council: citycouncil@lagunabeachcity.net.

Join other locals who agree:

Resident Sam Goldstein, former Liberate Laguna PAC founder is asking publicly that term limits be put on the ballot too:
https://www.lagunabeachindy.com/letter-city-council-needs-term-limits/

Resident Roger Butow (Founder of CWN): Read the Patch article here

CLB Council Serving data / Term Limits by Mike Morris

Guest Opinion on Term Limits in LB Indy by MJ Abraham

Council Members Term Limits Graph

MJ Abraham
LB Resident/Founder LBCHAT

Laguna Residents First (LRF) PAC LB Survey 2024

Posted on

Opinion: Surveying 2024 priorities for Laguna Beach

By Merrill Anderson

Laguna Residents First conducted an online Survey Monkey poll circulated amongst registered voters in Laguna Beach in January 2024. A total of 370 people responded (12% response rate) to a question about what the top priorities for Laguna Beach in 2024 should be.

Respondents could select multiple priorities and were invited to write comments.

Top priorities: Reducing traffic congestion (61% selected as a priority) and undergrounding power lines in green spaces (52%) emerged as the top two priorities. Respondents supported undergrounding all power lines, starting with the most critical areas, i.e., Laguna Canyon.

To read the full survey for 2024 on the Laguna Beach Indy website – Here

Former City Manager Shohreh Dupuis – Gone But Not Forgotten

Posted on (Updated: )

Dupuis leaves behind a trail of city government internal and external controversies. Not to mention reaping a retirement package many taxpayers do not support. Lots of questions still exist. An example is the public attention that continues to appear.

CLB Next City Manager Update. Its been reported that the Council starts City Manager interviews in mid-January.

Stay tuned. The public is watching closely to see if Council members Bob Whalen and Sue Kempf attempt to influence or control other members like they did in 2020.

Local Media Relevent to Shohreh Dupuis:
City of Laguna Beach City Manager Announces retirement
LB Indy – Retirement Details
Voice of OC – Retirement Details

City Government

The City of Laguna Beach (CLB) is a general law city. This means the city operates
under the laws of the State of California and has a Council-Manager form of
government.

Elected’s – The Council consists of five members elected by the public and a Mayor
selected to serve annually by the Council. Council sets policy and directs the City
Manager. Municipal governing elections are held in November of even-numbered years.
Follow the past Elections

Appointed’s – Part of the Council legislative power includes appointing citizens to
boards and commissions that serve as advisory bodies. Some like the Planning
Commission and Design Review Board also have overarching decision-making and
approval authorities. B&C Link.

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

City of Laguna Beach Investment Policy

Posted on (Updated: )

It is the policy of the City to invest public funds based on compliance with state law and prudent investment practices. The primary goal of the City’s Investment Policy
is to invest in a manner that will provide the maximum security of the principal invested
with a secondary emphasis on providing adequate liquidity and finally to achieve a rate
of return within the parameters of prudent risk management while conforming to all
state statutes and local regulations governing the investment of public funds.

To view more the full document click here

District Attorney Brown Act Documents

Posted on

Provided below are all the District Attorney’s Documents pertaining to the Brown Act Violation against the Laguna Beach City Council in 2021. Click on each document to review.

9-21-21 Letter From OC District Attorney to City Attorney re-alleged Brown Act Violation – View here

10-14-21 Letter from DA’s office regarding alleged Brown Act Violation – View here

Letter from OC District Attorney to City Councilman Weiss regarding Brown Act Violation – View here

Email from Laguna Beach City Attorney to OC District Attorney regarding the Brown Act Violation – View here

Supplemental Letter to DA’s office from LB District Attorney re-alleged Brown Act Violation – View here

City of Laguna Beach Ralph M. Brown Act Violation (2021)

For several months since June 29, 2021 the Laguna Beach City Council has been wrapped in controversy over whether or not they and city staff violated the Ralph M. Brown Act: Link to state Brown Act here.

The controversy ended with an investigation by the Orange County District Attorney’s office (DA) and the issuance of a formal letter confirming a violation and the assignment of closed session protocols as a mediation measure. The City of Laguna Beach agreed to these measures. See Orange County District Attorney’s Office and City of Laguna Beach Brown Act Documents: Click here

Laguna Beach Legal Counsel – Rutan & Tucker “Are we well-served” story to update R&T legal counsel concerns)

In addition to the LB City Council closed session Brown Act violation review the DA also provided a statement regarding a potential Brown Act violation by Council Member George Weiss. No confirmed violation was determined.

Council Member Weiss was formally “censured” by Council Members Mayor Bob Whalen, Mayor Pro-Ten Sue Kempf and Council Member Peter Blake for sharing a “closed session discussion” with the public prior to the DA investigation. Council Member Weiss holds that he could not have violated the Brown Act during the closed session meeting because the closed session topic under discussion was not properly noticed and therefore illegal. Council Member Weiss and several members of the public have requested that the censure be rescinded. To date there has been no acknowledgement of the public requests by Mayor Bob Whalen nor reminding action taken. (Click here to view Council Member Weiss addressing the Brown Act violation and censure during council meeting on 1)

LB City Council meeting related agendas/videos:

JUNE 29, 2021 Closed Session: Laguna Hotel discussion/action occurred proposed as violating Brown Act.

JULY 27, 2021: Public comment by resident Mark Fudge regarding his letter on July 13, 2021 to Mayor Whalen requesting specifics on the June 29 Closed Session Laguna Hotel potential litigation discussion. View here (Public Communications at 50:35 – 53:16 min.)

AUGUST 10, 2021: Council Agenda #12. Request of Mayor Whalen for censure of Councilmember Weiss and Councilmember Iseman for unauthorized disclosure of closed session confidential information (Whalen). View here

SEPTEMBER 28,2021: Council Special Meeting on potential litigation – District Attorney Letter Aledged Brown Act violation and City Response (Closed Session) – View here

OCTOBER 19, 2021: Multiple Closed Session and Brown Act references in minutes. View here

NOVEMBER 2, 2021: Mayor Bob Whalen acknowledges the City Council Brown Act Violation and apologizes to constituents and adoption of Closed Session Meeting Protocols – Consent # 9 – View here

(Public Communication starts at 23:16 – 39:12 min.)
MEDIA Coverage

https://patch.com/california/lagunabeach/lb-council-accused-violating-public-access-laws-meetings

OC District Attorney Says Laguna Beach City Council Violated Brown Act

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2021-09-25/district-attorney-finds-brown-act-violations-surrounding-laguna-beach-city-council-closed-session

Laguna Beach council’s closed session and leaks violated Brown Act, district attorney says

Letter: District attorney takes remedial action on Brown Act violation

https://www.theepochtimes.com/orange-county-da-alleges-laguna-beach-officials-violated-brown-act_4019805.html

https://newstral.com/en/article/en/1206612525/district-attorney-finds-brown-act-violations-surrounding-laguna-beach-city-council-closed-session

https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/story/2021-10-01/laguna-beach-responds-to-district-attorneys-closed-session-review

PUBLIC FEEDBACK – Letters to Editors/ Council Member Communications.

Opinion: Bob Whalen we thought we knew ‘ya – By Alan Boinus – here

Letter: A Sorry Spectacle of Local Government – Kurt Wiese – here

Letter: District Attorney Takes Remedial Action on Brown Act Violation – Howard Hills – here

Letter on Councilmember Weiss Censure By Howard Hills

I have no involvement in the current Hotel Laguna developer’s renovation project or the city’s code enforcement in that case. Also, I’ve never met or spoken with Councilmember George Weiss, and did not vote for him. For me this matter is about transparency and justice in my hometown.

What can be confirmed at this time is that in response to a request by Weiss to investigate the Board’s conduct on June 29, the Orange County District Attorney has determined that from June 29 to the present, including on Aug, 10 when the Council censured Weiss, there has been more serious and actionable evidence the Council majority violated the Brown Act than there is that Weiss did so. Indeed, under the Brown Act exception to closed meeting requirements in CA Gov. Code Sec. 54963(e)(2), it is lawful for a Council member to disclose the factual and legal basis for challenging the legality and propriety of Council action purporting to lawfully close a meeting to the public.

In a letter of Sept. 21, 2021, the Special Prosecution Unit of the DA’s office rejects the finding of the Council that the closed meeting was lawfully convened. What this means is that the Agenda Item Report and hearing on Item 12 failed to provide adequate legal substantiation for the censure of Weiss.

It now appears that in defending the unlawful meeting closure of June 29 in his signed background paper in the Agenda Item Report on Aug. 10, the City Attorney intentionally and for purposes of improper undue influence on the Council misstated the factual and legal grounds for closing the June 29 meeting. It also seems clear that false narrative of that background document was known by the City Attorney and City Manager to be untrue.

It was only after Weiss outed the Council and City Hall for unlawfully closing a meeting that the narrative about the threat of a lawsuit by the developer of the Hotel Laguna project was then trafficked by City Hall insiders to the press and influencers. That attempt to bake into the record of the Aug. 10 meeting a retroactive notice of a litigation threat that was not properly and lawfully noticed for the June 29 meeting was clever to a fault. Worse has been Phil Kohn’s flip flop now telling the DA our Council was considering a lawsuit against that developer, even though not mentioned in the closed meeting.

That abuse of authority by Kohn is now imputed to the Council by the DA’s office because it ratified his actions and the assertions he made to cover up his actions on June 29 in the Agenda Item Report memo he signed for the August 10 meeting. If Mr. Kohn claimed threat of litigation was purpose for closed meeting knowing that was not stated in the closed meeting agenda notice, wouldn’t this fit the dictionary definition of “lying” to the Council and the public?

It is reasonable to conclude the members were aware meeting was closed improperly to deprive the public of its right to open meetings, which is potentially a misdemeanor under Brown Act.

The Council should rescind the censure resolution, make an official apology to both accused members, and determine if Kohn or City Manager should be fired for cause. The members of the Council may have protection from slander liability, but that does not change the nature of what was done to George Weiss, which was political slander.

Howard is a third-generation Laguna native active in City Council and School Board affairs since 1967.

Letter to Mayor Bob Whalen from MJ Abraham,LBCHAT Publisher – November 5,2021:

Dear Mayor Whalen,
Thank you for the personal “public apology” regarding the City Council’s role in violating the Ralph M. Brown Act. Respectfully, I agree with you; with your legal expertise and time served in public office, it should not have happened. And there’s no question that our City Attorney Phil Kohn shouldn’t have known better; although it’s clear from his state-of-confusion that City closed session meetings may have been illegally conducted for years. In fact, further concern was offered by Council Member Weiss in the November 2nd public meeting with the mention of another closed session meeting last January where improper discussion, behavior and action by Council Member Peter Blake related to the hiring of Shohreh Dupuis as City Manager took place with both you and Mr. Kohn present. This suggests that more instances of improper closed session protocol by officials and staff who supposedly have been trained, as boldly stated by Council member Sue Kempf, on the Brown Act and other government body responsibilities while performing their duties under the guidance of our legal counsel existed. IMO, this latest serious mishap is cause for Mr. Kohn to resign or be removed immediately and this Council should implement this action asap to begin restoring public trust.

Sadly, this stain is forever part of our City, its leadership history and your Mayoral legacy. While you cannot remove it or the public trust issues it has created, your apology was a start and now that the public knows that the Laguna Hotel project work-status was not a litigation matter and therefore not confidential nor appropriate to discuss in closed session and steps have been taken to not repeat it, I ask that you also offer a public apology to Council Member George Weiss and rescind the censure action initiated by you and Councilmembers Sue Kempf and Peter Blake based upon this meeting. Ignoring this issue won’t make it go away and it can and should be corrected.

Mayor, if you truly want to reset and try to move us in a more positive community direction – this would be a good step in that direction. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Regards,

MJ Abraham
Laguna Beach Resident and Proud Community Activist
Founder: LBCHAT

Note: No response to this request received from Mayor Bob Whalen.