It’s Election Day in Laguna Beach. When the incumbent slate asks for four more years on the dais, take a close look at who's sitting at the podium—and who's funding the feast. Check the fine print, check the campaign filings, and cast your vote before 8:00 PM tonight.

Mayor Mark Orgill and developer Mohammad Honarkar have a long and tangled history. Orgill went to work for Honarkar’s companies in 2017, when they bought the Orgill partnerships’ Laguna Beach properties; the relationship ended in 2020 in a wage dispute that was settled in 2023 for $511,378.91, and Honarkar later sued Orgill. Much of what has been said about the two men in public has been rumor or accusation. I wanted to put what the records actually show in one place, in order.

This timeline is built from court filings, a signed settlement agreement, bankruptcy and arbitration records, City correspondence, and news reports. A few cautions before you read it:

• Honarkar’s public accusations against Orgill are just that. No court has found Orgill liable in any matter involving Honarkar, and Orgill answered Honarkar’s fraud suit with an anti-SLAPP motion.

• The 2023 settlement was a standard wage-claim release with no admission of wrongdoing by either side. It should not be described as anything else.

• Several 2023 entries come from emails produced in litigation. They show contact and participation, not what was decided or whether anyone was paid.

• Some figures, including the reported $1.34 billion arbitration award, come from secondary sources and news reports rather than the underlying documents.

A note on names: Three names in this timeline refer to the same property on South Coast Highway at Cleo Street. The Holiday Inn was a 60-room hotel at 696 South Coast Highway. Next door, at 680–690, a mixed-use building held 14 second-floor apartments that were approved in 2010 for short-term rental and marketed under the names InVogue and later 14 West; under Honarkar’s ownership they were operated as part of the hotel. The Cleo Hotel was the name of Honarkar’s 2018–2019 proposal to demolish both buildings, including the 14 apartments, and build one new hotel; it was never built. The property now operates as 14 West, and later references to 14 West in this timeline mean the whole property.

Where the record is incomplete, I say so. If you have documents that add to or correct anything here, please send them.

2017

• A network of Honarkar-controlled entities (4G Ventures/Laguna Beach Company) acquires the Orgill real-estate partnerships’ Laguna Beach portfolio. Orgill is retained as an independent contractor/consultant. In late November 2017 escrow closes on the sale of Art-A-Fair and the Festival Center to 4G Ventures; Orgill, who developed and ran the seven-degrees event venue with his wife, Dora Wexell, and Honarkar’s daughter Hasty Honarkar work together on those projects together.

2018

• Orgill, as “Executive Partner, Strategy and Development” of Laguna Creative Ventures, helps launch “The Hive” (the rebranded Festival Center at 805–856 Laguna Canyon Road) and the “Summer of Color” mural program. Orgill is described as a managing/founding partner of LCV; Hasty Honarkar is VP and Dora Wexell is VP/GM. Separately, in 2018, Honarkar’s 4G Wireless contributed to the developer-aligned Liberate Laguna PAC (the Laguna Beach Independent reported a $10,000 contribution that cycle; the PAC backed Sue Kempf and Peter Blake — Orgill was not yet a candidate).

• November 7, 2018 — The Planning Commission holds a concept review (Concept Review 18-2317) of the “Cleo Hotel,” a 112-room hotel to replace the Holiday Inn at 696 South Coast Highway and the adjacent mixed-use building at 680–690, whose 14 short-term rental units were operated as part of the hotel. The staff report lists the applicant as 4G Ventures; the approved minutes list Orgill, then president of Laguna Creative Ventures, as “applicant,” and he speaks for the project, with Richard Clarke and Young Rhee of Architects Orange and planning consultant Ann Larson. This was a concept review, not a formal application: per the staff report, “no permits will be granted as a result of this request.” The C-1 zone allows one room per 600 square feet of lot area, about 80 rooms on the 48,000-square-foot site, so the concept exceeds the limit by 32 rooms.

• Rather than seek a variance, the applicant asks the commission to consider a future Municipal Code/Local Coastal Program amendment eliminating the C-1 district’s hotel/motel density provision. The concept includes a meeting room, restaurant, retail, a pool and deck areas, demolition of 14 rental apartments, and 223 underground parking spaces against roughly 256 required by staff’s calculation. Commissioners McErlane, Sadler, Johnson, and Whitin each voice opposition to or doubts about the code amendment; Sadler says 80 rooms would be more appropriate. Orgill says the team will decide whether to seek a second concept review. Commissioners McErlane and Whitin disclose prior meetings with Orgill (McErlane with Orgill and Honarkar at the site). Read the Substack article on this project HERE: https://georgeweiss.substack.com/p/the-cleo-hotel-the-112-room-pitch

2019

• • Honarkar’s Laguna Beach Company inks a 99-year lease with property owner E.W. Merritt Farms for Hotel Laguna (which had closed Dec. 31, 2017). Building permit for interior improvements issued December 2019.

  • July–August 2019 — Laguna Beach Company returns with two alternative Cleo Hotel designs by architect John Tilton, one with 103 rooms and one with 80 rooms (the latter “achieved by providing more suites as opposed to singles”); the plan still includes a third-story pool area with a bar. The Orange County Business Journal (Aug. 2, 2019) reports the 14 West/Holiday Inn concept has been revised to a 103-room, three-story terraced hotel with three levels of subterranean parking, replacing both the Holiday Inn and the existing 14 West property; as of an August 2019 Planning Commission meeting, the project remains at the concept-review stage, not yet entitled. No public record reviewed shows that any version of the Cleo Hotel was entitled or built. The existing property remained in operation and today operates as 14 West; press coverage in 2023 refers to 14 West as “formerly the Holiday Inn.”

2020

• • Summer 2020 — Pandemic closures strain the hospitality business and fray the Honarkar–Orgill relationship. Mark Orgill’s employment ends approximately September 2, 2020 (per the later settlement agreement, he’d been employed since roughly July 1, 2017); his wife’s employment had already ended in mid-August 2020. A court-appointed receiver bills for hours related to Orgill’s “employment termination;” his wife is notified she is laid off from LCV. The Orgills assert unresolved unpaid wage/financial claims; Honarkar disputes them.

  • December 7, 2020 — Mark Orgill files a Labor Commissioner wage claim (Case No. WC-CM-815123).

2021

• • January 20, 2021 — Orgill’s wife files a separate Labor Commissioner wage claim.

  • June 8, 2021 — Honarkar (via 4G Wireless) forms the MOM Investcos joint venture with Makhijani’s Continuum Analytics. At the time, a $195 million LoanCore loan secured by most of Honarkar’s real estate was in default after he missed a $136 million balloon payment in December 2020, and a receiver had been appointed over the properties. Continuum’s term sheet called for a $35 million initial contribution; Makhijani reduced it to $30 million, to be used to “close the gap” in the LoanCore refinance. (Orgill is not part of this structure.) The arbitrator later found that the property portfolio Honarkar was fraudulently induced to contribute was worth $483,570,000 on June 8, 2021; Bisnow (June 2026) reports that 14 of the properties have since been foreclosed on and three more are in foreclosure under receivership. By the time of the 2025 bankruptcy filings, the MOM Investcos held interests in roughly 60 property-holding companies. The arbitrator also found that several entities listed on the joint venture’s Exhibit C — including Terra Laguna Beach, Inc., Seven Degrees Laguna Inc. and 14 West Coast LLC — were “never intended by the parties to be Contributed Entities,” and later clarified that these entities, Terra included, “are not now and never have been owned by the MOM JV Entities.” MOM took physical control of Terra’s restaurant on July 1, 2023, and Terra was listed as an “interim” debtor in the 2025 bankruptcy filings.

  • October 2021 — Hotel Laguna’s ground-floor restaurant/lobby reopens during Honarkar’s renovation.

  • October 29, 2021 — Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. files suit against the Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach (OCSC 30-2022-01288248-CU-FR-CJC), later settled in May 2022 over unpaid rent and unpermitted construction — the case that would later reopen and become entangled in the bankruptcy.

  • 14 West is among the properties folded into the MOM Investcos joint venture formed in June 2021 (see above), later reported by Bisnow as part of the $483.6 million, 20-property portfolio the joint venture took control of.

2022

• • May 2022 — Dean Zipser, outside counsel for the Festival of Arts, retains Mark Orgill under a paid agreement; Orgill later testifies under oath, in an April 26, 2023 deposition, that he was paid $10,000 and describes the engagement’s scope as “to follow and understand the process for the submittal of an application to do development or construction” — work matching Terra Laguna Beach’s building-permit process at 650 Laguna Canyon Road. Zipser objects on attorney-client-privilege and work-product grounds but permits the answer.

  • June–August 2022 — City Building Official Dennis Bogle and Senior Planner Heather Steven correspond directly with Orgill, rather than with Terra’s own management, regarding Terra’s Temporary Certificate of Occupancy status and its Zoning Plan Check (Case No. 22-0950). This tracks a May 11, 2022 email from Festival of Arts president David Perry to Community Development Director Marc Wiener, confirming that Zipser “has engaged Mark Orgill to advise him with respect to Terra’s compliance with the settlement agreement, including the performance milestones,” and asking the city to treat Orgill as an authorized recipient of Terra-related information on the Festival’s behalf.

  • November 2022 — Mark Orgill is elected to the Laguna Beach City Council, alongside Alex Rounaghi; incumbent Mayor Sue Kempf is re-elected; Peter Blake is defeated. Orgill joins the council at the end of 2022.

2023

• • Early–Mid 2023 — The Honarkar–Continuum relationship collapses. Honarkar alleges Continuum’s Mahender Makhijani had promised a $30 million equity infusion into Hotel Laguna that never materialized, and that at the start of 2023 he discovered loans taken out by Continuum — including a $20 million Nano Banc loan — that he hadn’t authorized. Continuum disputes this, saying it had loaned Honarkar roughly $150 million to stave off foreclosure of his assets in exchange for management oversight of the portfolio, and that Honarkar was in default on those loans, which is what triggered his removal as the joint venture’s Administrative Manager.

  • The dispute was later resolved substantially in Honarkar’s favor: the JAMS arbitrator’s February 21, 2025 partial award found the Nano Banc loan had been improperly secured against Honarkar’s own assets without his consent, that Continuum failed to meet its capital-contribution obligations and engaged in unauthorized transactions and retaliation after Honarkar sought financial records and arbitration, and rejected Continuum’s counterclaims against him for lack of supporting evidence.

  • April 5, 2023 — Michael Kluchin of Continuum Analytics emails Councilmember Orgill at his city address on behalf of Hotel Laguna, LLC requesting a meeting the next day to introduce “the owners and the group that controls Hotel Laguna” and discuss “how we can work with the city to move forward.” Orgill replies, “I’d be happy to meet. How about 11:00?” — proposing a meeting for April 6. Orgill’s later involvement with the MOM/Continuum side’s Hotel Laguna team is documented in the September–December 2023 entries below.

  • May 2–5, 2023 — Laguna Beach Police respond to four separate disturbances tied to the dispute — an armed security guard incident at 14 West in the morning, a 20-person brawl between rival security teams in the Hotel Laguna lobby that afternoon, and two further altercations at 14 West that evening, including one where armed guards remained present despite an earlier agreement to disarm; one person, Hadda Banayotis (later identified by the JAMS arbitrator as an associate of Makhijani’s), is arrested at the scene. Citing public-safety risk under Municipal Code Chapter 7.24, City Manager Shohreh Dupuis issues a Summary Abatement Order on May 3 closing both hotels. May 5, 2023: the order is largely rescinded after the investor group obtains a temporary restraining order from Orange County Superior Court, and both hotels reopen under investor-group control that day.

Note: The City Council met that same night, I was there, and Mo’s group was allowed to occupy the properties until late in the evening, when the City Manager ordered both closed. The City had documents in hand weeks before. On April 5, MOM’s representatives gave the City Manager documents showing their authority over Hotel Laguna, and on April 26 the City Attorney wrote Honarkar’s lawyer that the City had records identifying MOM CA Investco as Hotel Laguna’s managing member, giving Honarkar until May 3 to produce anything contrary. The companies that owned both the Holiday Inn/14 West parcels and Hotel Laguna had belonged to MOM CA Investco since June 2021. At the next closed session, attended by three members of LBPD command staff, it was said the department had never seen anything like this and treated it as a business dispute. I said the May 2 attempted takeover should have been treated as trespassing, since the City knew, and had documents showing, that the MOM group was legally in control of both properties.

• • June 20, 2023 — Kluchin emails city Community Development Director Marc Wiener and Building Official Dennis Bogle, cc’ing Orgill, referencing a standing “weekly meeting” and requesting removal of a stop-work order at Hotel Laguna; Wiener confirms removal that afternoon, cc’ing Orgill.

  • June 29–30, 2023 — Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. notifies Festival of Arts president David Perry that Michael Kluchin is now Terra’s authorized representative and encloses a draft Indemnification Agreement. Deba Shyam signs the agreement as CEO, CFO, and Secretary of Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. and separately as “Authorized Agent” for indemnitor MOM CA Investco LLC (dated 6/30/23), giving an email address at continuumanalytics.com. The agreement’s recitals cite two pending Orange County Superior Court cases over “authority and control of Terra Laguna” between MOM CA Investco LLC and Mo Honarkar: Case Nos. 30-2023-01322886 and 30-2023-01323759. NOTE — the copy reviewed shows the Festival of Arts (Indemnitee) signature line blank; whether the Festival countersigned on July 1, as otherwise reported, is not independently confirmed by this document.

  • June 30, 2023 — Honarkar’s restaurant manager informs him that representatives of MOM CA Investco are attempting to take control of Terra, with Festival of Arts representatives present; MOM CA executes an Indemnification Agreement with Festival of Arts that day (the Festival’s countersignature, reported as July 1, is not confirmed in the copy reviewed). In the early morning of July 1, 2023, armed individuals and agents acting for Continuum/Makhijani take physical control of Terra’s restaurant premises; per Honarkar, the MOM Respondents thereafter refuse to return control of Terra or produce complete books and records. On July 24, 2023, Kluchin and others break into 4G’s corporate headquarters and remove documents, including boxes labeled “LEGAL”; the arbitrator later finds the MOM Respondents committed forcible entry and detainer at the 4G offices. For Terra, the arbitrator finds the restaurant was never contributed to the joint venture and awards Honarkar $6,483,325 for Terra’s lost income in 2023–2025.

Note: Reports indicate the LBPD did not stop MOM’s agents from taking over Terra; according to a July 14, 2023 letter from Honarkar’s attorney, officers instead told Honarkar’s people the City was “taking MOM’s side” and kept them off the property. The arbitrator later found Terra never contributed to the joint venture. If MOM had a right to Terra, why did it wait two years after the joint venture’s June 2021 formation to take it, and then do so overnight with armed men?

Orgill had by now a long history with Mo and he would have or should have known that Terra was never part of the transfer of properties. He led the effort to develop Terra until the falling out between them.

• • July 14, 2023 — Isaac Zfaty, attorney for Honarkar and 4G Ventures, writes City Attorney Philip Kohn (Rutan & Tucker) protesting that Laguna Beach police told Honarkar’s agents the City was “taking MOM’s side” and excluded them from Terra Laguna, 7 Degrees and 777. The letter states that, “as indicated in my prior letter to you, we have observed City Counselman Mark Orgill meeting with MOM/Continuum at the Hotel Laguna,” and that “we are also being told” Dora Orgill would take over 7 Degrees operations. It raises a possible Brown Act violation. These are allegations by Honarkar’s counsel, not findings; the earlier letter it references has not been reviewed. (FTI Consulting’s 2025 billing records later show Dora Orgill handling Terra and Seven7Seven/777 matters for the debtor entities.)

  • September 7, 2023 — Orgill files Mark Orgill v. Hotel Laguna, LLC, et al. (OCSC Case No. 30-2023-01348460-CU-BC-CJC), according to the recitals of the settlement agreement he signs with Hotel Laguna, LLC eleven days later. The agreement provides for payment “via checks mailed” to the Orgills; it does not identify the bank account the payments were drawn on.

  • September 18, 2023 — Orgill and Hotel Laguna LLC sign a $511,378.91 settlement of Orgill’s claims.

  • September 19–22, 2023 — Orgill personally arranges a “model room tour” of the Surf & Sand Resort for Gerald Marcil and Michael Kluchin; Mahender Makhijani is cc’d on the confirming reply.

Note: The question arises whether a city council member is working as a consultant for MOM? Based on the activities it sure looks like it.

• • October 2023 — Honarkar and 4G Wireless initiate JAMS arbitration against Makhijani, Continuum Analytics, the MOM Investor Groups, MOM Managers and Nano Banc.

  • November 6–7, 2023 — Orgill takes part by email in Hotel Laguna renovation planning with Gerald Marcil, Michael Kluchin, architects Laura and Homer Oatman, and Gary Webber. After Marcil writes that “we need mark or someone with common sense to talk to Chattel” about window materials, Orgill replies from his personal email at 12:56 a.m. that “Chattel and Clark from the heritage committee” recommend composite or aluminum-clad windows, and that the final window “needs to be selected ASAP to assure its included in the planning commission presentation.”

  • November 10–15, 2023 — Project team (Oatman Architects, Kluchin, Marcil, Orgill) negotiates fire-sprinkler and fire-alarm contracts; Laura Oatman notes Orgill recommended going with Act First and Pyro-Comm “because of their familiarity with the Hotel and with the City.”

  • December 27, 2023 — AO Architects partner Richard Clarke sends a bluff-line/geotechnical update on a proposed new Hotel Laguna parking structure addressed jointly to Gerald Marcil and Mark Orgill, proposing next steps toward a Coastal-adjacent “Concept Review Package.”

Note: Again, this appears to be a city council member acting as member of the project team.

2024

• • January 2, 2024 — Reported trespassing/unauthorized roof work by “Greg Paul” and others at Laguna Festival Center LLC (805–859 Laguna Canyon Rd); LBPD declines to remove them without a court order determining ownership.

  • January 4, 2024 — Kluchin emails City Manager Sean Joyce, outside counsel Megan Garibaldi, Police Chief Jeffrey Calvert, and Marc Cohen — cc’ing the full city council including Orgill and George Weiss — protesting LBPD’s non-intervention and pressing for a response to a pending Public Records Act request; the City Clerk responds same-day with the City Attorney’s prior PRA response to requestor Michelle Pendleton and LBPD Calls for Service Reports.

  • January 31, 2024 — Honarkar files Honarkar v. Orgill (OCSC 30-2024-01376555), a property-fraud action; the specific factual allegations are not established by sources reviewed.

  • February 15, 2024 — Honarkar discusses the case at length on Voice of Laguna radio, an interview local press later characterized as containing unsubstantiated allegations against Orgill.

  • March 6, 2024 — Orgill files an anti-SLAPP motion to strike (CCP § 425.16).

  • October–November 2024 — A Motion for Attorney’s Fees is heard October 14 — consistent with a successful anti-SLAPP motion, which carries mandatory fee-shifting to the prevailing defendant. Attorney-fee and other motions continue to be heard through November; the Honarkar v. Orgill case is ultimately dismissed with prejudice on November 4, 2024.

2025

• • February 21, 2025 — The JAMS arbitrator (Arbitration No. 5220003126) issues a partial interim award finding that “Claimants have proven their fraudulent inducement claim against Makhijani, Continuum and the MOM Members,” along with breach of contract and forcible entry/detainer; the award finds a $20 million Nano Banc loan was improperly secured by Honarkar’s former assets. Honarkar was represented by Aaron May and Joseph Ybarra of Halpern May Ybarra Gelberg LLP.

  • February 28, 2025 — The MOM Investcos file Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 25-10321-BLS); twenty of the property-holding SPEs join on March 10 and March 31, 2025, including Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. (listed as an “interim” SPE debtor; Terra’s own petition was filed March 31, 2025). Robbin Itkin is appointed Independent Manager and Mark Shinderman named Chief Restructuring Officer, sidelining prior management.

  • March 31, 2025 — Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. files its own separate voluntary Chapter 11 petition in Delaware (Case No. 25-10641-BLS), paying a $1,738 filing fee.

  • April 10, 2025 — 4G Wireless, Inc. and Mohammad Honarkar move to dismiss Terra’s Chapter 11 case, supported by Honarkar’s own declaration; a hearing is initially set for May 1, 2025.

  • May 12, 2025 — With the bankruptcy underway, Sam Maralan is substituted out as counsel of record in the Terra v. Festival of Arts case; restructuring officer Mark Shinderman appoints bankruptcy-estate counsel Anthony Bisconti to represent Terra in that litigation.

  • May 2025 — FTI Consulting’s billing records (Third Staffing Report, filed July 17, 2025) show Orgill’s wife, listed as “D. Orgill” of “Vgruppe,” corresponding repeatedly with FTI restructuring professionals throughout the month on Terra payroll, employee health insurance and benefits, the Seven7Seven/777 liquor license, SoCal Gas utility accounts (including the Notice of Bankruptcy Commencement), the ADP account, and Terra’s own Chapter 11 case.

  • August 18, 2025 — Judge Brendan L. Shannon signs an order dismissing Terra Laguna Beach, Inc.’s Chapter 11 case (Case No. 25-10641-BLS) “for Other Reason”; the case is formally entered and closed on the docket October 20, 2025.

  • 2025–early 2026 — After Bisconti is relieved as Terra’s counsel, Terra goes unrepresented in the Festival of Arts case. The Festival of Arts moves for, and obtains, entry of default against Terra during this gap.

2026

• • January 26, 2026 — Anthony Bisconti, identified as Terra’s “former special counsel,” files a Notice of Dismissal of Bankruptcy Case in the Superior Court action, attaching Judge Shannon’s dismissal order and the Delaware bankruptcy docket, and serving it on Festival of Arts’ counsel, Mark Orgill’s counsel (Nicole Toft), and Terra itself.

  • March 20, 2026 — The Festival of Arts, through Umberg Zipser LLP, files its General Denial and twenty-two Affirmative Defenses to Terra’s Second Amended Complaint, including a defense that Terra “remains unrepresented by counsel” and is “barred from litigating this action.”

  • April 21, 2026 — Sam Maralan substitutes back in as Terra’s counsel of record.

  • May 7, 2026 — The court denies Terra’s ex parte application to consolidate the fraud case with a newly filed unlawful detainer action, Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach v. Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. (OCSC Case No. 30-2026-01550059-CU-UD-CJC); duty judge Lindsey E. Martinez rules Terra failed to show irreparable harm or any statutory basis for ex parte relief.

  • Late May 2026 (reported) — The JAMS arbitrator — identified by the Orange County Business Journal (June 1, 2026) as retired judge David A. Thompson — awards Honarkar and 4G Wireless a record $1.34 billion after finding his former financier had “fraudulently induced” him into the joint venture.

  • June 10, 2026 — Mahender Makhijani is arrested at his Corona del Mar home on a federal bank-fraud complaint (alleged ~$100 million fraud against Western Alliance Bancorp via Cantor Group V LLC); he faces up to 30 years and was due to enter a plea July 6.

  • June 30, 2026 — Maralan files a declaration in the Terra v. Festival of Arts case responding to the court’s Order to Show Cause re: sanctions, explaining the representation gap and default, and proposing either a stipulation to vacate the default or motions to be filed by July 15, 2026.

  • July 13, 2026 — OSC re: sanctions hearing set in the Terra v. Festival of Arts case (Dept. C-15, Judge Yolanda V. Torres); Maralan requested the Case Management Conference be continued to September 21, 2026, if the OSC is discharged on the papers.

  • July 28, 2026 — Following a bench trial submitted July 21, 2026, Judge Jennifer McCartney (Dept. C61) issues a Minute Order in the unlawful detainer case, ruling Festival of Arts never restored Terra to possession after knowingly letting MOM CA occupy the premises, that the January/February 2026 rent notice was therefore invalid, and that Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. is the prevailing party entitled to possession of 650C Laguna Canyon Road and to move for attorney’s fees and costs.

  • October 13, 2026 — Terra’s counsel, Sam Maralan, submits a Third Amended Complaint in Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach (OCSC Case No. 30-2022-01288248) through the One Legal e-filing service, with electronic service completed the same day; as of the confirmation, the filing was under court clerk review. The e-filing confirmation lists the court as the North Justice Center in Fullerton (case suffix “-NJC”). The complaint’s allegations have not yet been reviewed for this timeline.

  • 2026 — Mark Orgill is named Mayor of Laguna Beach (he had served as mayor pro tem in 2025). Honarkar continues litigation, including the ongoing Terra Laguna Beach dispute with the Festival of Arts detailed above, and works to reacquire foreclosed properties including Hotel Laguna (which he values at roughly $100 million completed).

  • June 2026 — The Orange County Business Journal reports 14 West, along with Hotel Laguna and other properties in the disputed portfolio, has fallen into foreclosure or receivership following the JAMS arbitrator’s $1.34 billion fraud award against Makhijani and Continuum Analytics; Honarkar states he is still seeking assistance to recover the properties themselves, indicating 14 West had not been returned to his control as of that report. This is separate from, and not resolved by, the July 28, 2026, Terra Laguna Beach possession ruling, which concerns a different property and a different corporate entity.

Summary and Conclusion

• Taken together, the public records, litigation filings and internal communications compiled here document significant private overlap between a sitting Laguna Beach council member and the MOM/Continuum development team at the very time that group was seeking municipal approvals.

  Nothing in this record proves that Mark Orgill broke the law, and no court or regulatory agency has found wrongdoing on his part. The question for the public is whether these documented relationships create an appearance of conflict and an ethical problem for an elected official. Based on the record, a reasonable observer has strong grounds for concern:

1. Substantial income from the developer group. In September 2023, while serving on the Council, Orgill settled wage claims with Hotel Laguna LLC for $511,378.91, with $250,000 due within two days. The dispute dated to 2020, before his election, but by 2023 Hotel Laguna, LLC had been controlled by MOM CA Investco for more than two years. On his own 2023 Form 700, Orgill reported Continuum Analytics as the source of more than $100,000, labeled “Legal Settlement,” and described his position as “Consultant.” The same filing reports his wife’s income as executive director of “Vieregruppe Management,” which appears to be part of the same network. Under California’s Political Reform Act (Gov. Code §§ 87100, 87103(c)), a source of $500 or more in income within the prior 12 months is a financial interest that can require an official to stay out of related decisions.

2. Active participation in the project. Within days of the settlement, Orgill arranged a model-room tour at the Surf & Sand for Gerald Marcil and Michael Kluchin. In November he relayed window-material recommendations from the preservation consultant and a Heritage Committee member, urging a quick decision so the choice could go into the Planning Commission presentation, and he recommended fire contractors “because of their familiarity with the Hotel and with the City.” In December, a project architect addressed him jointly with Marcil on a proposed parking structure headed for concept review. Several of these emails went to his personal accounts rather than his City address.

3. Developer outreach to a council office. MOM’s representative wrote to Orgill at his City email in April 2023 to discuss “how we can work with the city to move forward,” and Orgill proposed a meeting time. In June 2023 he was copied when MOM pressed City building and planning staff to lift a stop-work order at Hotel Laguna, which staff did the same afternoon. The records do not show Orgill directing staff or voting on these matters but serving at once as a City official and as a collaborator on the project team blurs the line between public oversight and private advocacy.

4. Household and earlier business ties. Bankruptcy billing records show Orgill’s wife handling payroll, benefits, utility, and liquor-license matters for the MOM debtor entities in 2025. Before his election, the Festival of Arts’ lawyer paid Orgill $10,000 in 2022 to follow Terra’s permit compliance, and City staff corresponded with him directly about it; his 2021 Form 700 lists consulting income from Umberg Zipser, the Festival’s law firm, and Architects of Orange, the firm that later worked with him on the Hotel Laguna parking structure. Those earlier engagements were not for MOM, but they show a pattern of paid private work on projects that were before City staff.

5. A pattern of risky associations. Over the eight years since 2017, the record shows Mayor Orgill working closely with two parties. One is Mo Honarkar, whose business dealings in Laguna Beach have drawn lawsuits and court-appointed receivers. The other is the MOM/Continuum group, whose leader, Mahender Makhijani, was arrested in June 2026 on federal bank-fraud charges and, as of July, remained in federal custody awaiting trial. Makhijani has pleaded not guilty, but an arbitrator has already found that his group fraudulently induced Honarkar into their joint venture. Someone with Mr. Orgill’s experience should have recognized the risks in both relationships. Either he didn’t see them, or he chose to overlook them. Neither is reassuring in a mayor.

Balancing the Record

• Fairness requires acknowledging the limits of this evidence. The settlement resolved wage claims from 2020 without any admission of liability. This review found no recorded council vote by Orgill on a Hotel Laguna or MOM matter, though not every agenda from the period has been reviewed. Mohammad Honarkar’s fraud suit against Orgill was dismissed with prejudice. The statement by Honarkar’s attorney that Orgill was seen meeting with MOM at the hotel is an adversary’s allegation, and several documents here come from parties to the litigation, each with its own interests. Whether any of this crossed into a violation of the Political Reform Act is for the Fair Political Practices Commission to decide.

  Nevertheless, municipal ethics standards exist to prevent exactly this situation: an elected official who holds financial ties to a developer group and gives it planning help while that group is working its way through the City’s regulatory process.

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

  George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member and a long-time civic advocate. Disclosure: I served on the Laguna Beach City Council from 2020 to 2024, alongside Mark Orgill in 2023 and 2024. 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.

  Sources:

  ^{Settlement and Release Agreement between Mark Orgill and Hotel Laguna, LLC, Sept. 18, 2023.}

  ^{California Labor Commissioner wage claims filed Dec. 7, 2020 (Case No. WC-CM-815123) and Jan. 20, 2021.}

  ^{Orange County Superior Court, Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach, Case No. 30-2022-01288248-CU-FR-CJC (including the Festival of Arts’ General Denial, Mar. 20, 2026; Notice of Ruling, May 12, 2026; and Maralan declaration re: Order to Show Cause, June 30, 2026).}

  ^{Orange County Superior Court, Honarkar v. Orgill, Case No. 30-2024-01376555 (complaint, Jan. 31, 2024; anti-SLAPP motion, Mar. 6, 2024).}

  ^{Orange County Superior Court, Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach v. Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. (unlawful detainer), Minute Order, July 28, 2026 (Judge Jennifer McCartney, Dept. C61).}

  ^{One Legal eFiling & eServe confirmation, Order No. 29525299, Terra Laguna Beach, Inc. v. Festival of Arts of Laguna Beach, Third Amended Complaint, submitted Oct. 13, 2026.}

  ^{Letter from Isaac R. Zfaty (counsel for Mohammad Honarkar and 4G Ventures) to City Attorney Philip D. Kohn, July 14, 2023.}

  ^{Orange County Superior Court, Mark Orgill v. Hotel Laguna, LLC, et al., Case No. 30-2023-01348460-CU-BC-CJC (filed Sept. 7, 2023, per settlement recitals).}

  ^{JAMS Arbitration No. 5220003126, partial interim award, Feb. 21, 2025.}

  ^{JAMS Arbitration No. 5220003126, Final Award, May 12, 2026 (Hon. David A. Thompson, Ret.), including the incorporated Partial Final Award findings on the LoanCore loan, the $30 million initial contribution, the $483,570,000 portfolio value, and the Exhibit C entities.}

  ^{U.S. Bankruptcy Court, District of Delaware: MOM CA Investco LLC et al., Case No. 25-10321-BLS; Terra Laguna Beach, Inc., Case No. 25-10641-BLS (dismissal order, Aug. 18, 2025); FTI Consulting Third Staffing Report, filed July 17, 2025.}

  ^{Email correspondence produced in litigation (Bates-stamped MOMRESP series), April–December 2023; City of Laguna Beach email, Jan. 4, 2024.}

  ^{City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission, Staff Report and approved Minutes, Concept Review 18-2317 (Cleo Hotel), Nov. 7, 2018; Laguna Beach Independent coverage of that hearing and of the July 2019 alternative designs.}

  ^{Orange County Business Journal, coverage of the 2012 sale and renaming of the InVogue Hotel as 14 West (Sept. 28, 2012), the 14 West hotel concept (Aug. 2019), and the arbitration award and foreclosures (June 1, 2026).}

  ^{Bisnow, coverage of the MOM Investcos joint venture and its 20-property portfolio (June 2026).}

  ^{Laguna Beach Independent, coverage of 2018 Liberate Laguna PAC contributions.}

  ^{Voice of Laguna radio interview with Mohammad Honarkar, Feb. 15, 2024, and local press coverage.}

  ^{Federal complaint and reporting on the arrest of Mahender Makhijani, June 10, 2026.}

  ^{Laguna Beach Police Department and local news reports on the May 2–5, 2023 incidents at Hotel Laguna and 14 West.}

  ^{Hotel Laguna, LLC, Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, June 8, 2021; California Secretary of State Statement of Information for Hotel Laguna, LLC, filed Oct. 19, 2022.}

  ^{City Attorney Philip Kohn emails of April 25–26 and May 2, 2023, and City Manager Shohreh Dupuis emails of May 2, 2023, as quoted in MOM counsel’s May 10, 2023 timeline; City of Laguna Beach media release, May 5, 2023.}

  ^{Management Agreement between Mohammad Honarkar/4G Wireless and Laguna HW, LLC, Laguna HI, LLC et al., dated Jan. 1, 2021, and Declaration of Marc Cohen ISO Ex Parte Application, MOM CA Investco LLC v. Honarkar, OCSC No. 30-2023-01322886 (May 2023).}

In 2023, one Laguna Beach architect brought two very different projects to the City. Residents fought both, but only one of those fights ended in their favor.

The first was a mixed-use building on the Sweetwater Car Wash site at 1890 South Coast Highway. City records list Anders Lasater as applicant and architect. Staff recommended approval with an exemption from environmental review, and the staff report never used the word “contamination.”

Residents then found a County Health Care Agency report estimating about 23 cubic yards of gasoline-contaminated soil still on the former gas station site. The Planning Commission approved the project anyway in June 2023. Two residents appealed. By the time the appeal reached the Council in September, staff had reversed course and agreed the project needed environmental review. The Council sent it back 5-0. At that hearing, the architect acknowledged he knew about the remaining contamination and planned to deal with it once building permits were issued. Of course.

The second was a 3,589-square-foot house on a steep vacant lot at 22350 Third Avenue in South Laguna. The architect and applicant, again, was Anders Lasater. Neighbors’ surveys put the house on slopes of 62 to 91 percent, and General Plan Policy 14-B prohibits building on slopes of 45 percent or more. In August 2023 the Council denied the neighbors’ appeal 4-1. Councilmembers Kempf, Rounaghi, Orgill and Whalen voted yes; I voted no.

A Superior Court judge then ruled the City had violated its own General Plan. The owner and the architect walked away from the project, and the City kept litigating on its own, with public money. On October 16 the Court of Appeal ruled for the City, calling the City’s slope method “reasonable” while describing the General Plan definition as “incomplete.”

In both cases, residents did the work that staff should have done, finding the contamination report and the slope surveys themselves. They won one case and lost the other. That is about as well as residents do at City Hall. The city has since won on appeal but that won’t be the end of the story.

The scorecard

I went back through every appeal the City Council decided from 2021 through September 2026, using my own Council recaps for 2021 to 2023 and the City’s official minutes since August 2023. (Minutes for a few early meetings aren’t online, so a handful of appeals may be missing.)

Of the 31 resident appeals, 23 were denied outright, most of them unanimously, and three more let the project go forward with tighter conditions. Owners appealing a denial won a remand three times out of four. When the Council overruled its own Forest Avenue Mall conditions in 2025, it was to let the owner paint historic brick.

Some of those denials were correct, since not every neighbor’s objection has merit. But the numbers raise a fair question about who the process is built to hear.

The familiar names

Laguna Beach is a small town, and a small group of professionals handles a large share of its contested projects. They are architects, landscape consultants and land-use attorneys who know the boards, the staff and the Councilmembers by first name. That is not illegal, and many of them do good work. But they are, in practice, the town’s land-use lobbyists.

As far as I can find, the City has no lobbyist registry, and its Code of Ethics (Chapter 2.14) contains no rule requiring Councilmembers to disclose contacts with an applicant’s representative before a hearing. Disclosure happens by custom, when the Mayor asks for “ex parte” communications at the start of an item, and it is only as complete as each member decides to make it.

Here is what the public record shows about four of the most familiar names, and a few others, from 2021 to 2026.

Larry Nokes, attorney (Nokes & Quinn)

Steve Kawaratani, landscape and land-use consultant

Mr. Kawaratani is also a longtime local columnist, writing for the Indy and Stu News.

Morris Skenderian and Todd Skenderian, architects

Anders Lasater, architect

Others

• Horst Noppenberger, architect, was the agent for the 7,584-square-foot blufftop house at 31451 Coast Highway, which the Council approved in March 2024. I voted for it, and I was wrong. Coastal Commission staff later found most of the house would sit on the bluff face and recommended removing the top floor. Horst Architects also designed the 44 S. La Senda project.

• Marshall Ininns of MIDG Architects is the architect on the 32005 and 32007 Coast Highway bluff projects. Coastal Commission staff placed the bluff edge at the 150-foot contour, well above where the applicants’ consultant drew it.

The insiders don’t always win. Nokes’s clients lost at 44 S. La Senda, Kawaratani’s at the Egan Homestead, (temporarily) and Lasater’s at Sweetwater. Several of their approvals were then cut back or questioned by the Coastal Commission, which is often where residents finally get a hearing on the merits. The pattern is about access as much as outcomes. These professionals know how the process works, who to call, and when, and residents usually learn it as they go. And they contribute money to the council members and they expect favors back.

What access looks like

The email before the hearing. On January 6, 2026, the Council heard the Schiffman family’s appeal over ficus trees planted in their Catalina view corridor at 1813 Temple Hills Drive. During the hearing, Mr. Nokes showed a photograph the Mayor had taken during his site visit, marked with the height lines his clients wanted, and thanked the Mayor for his “brilliant photography.” The Schiffmans had never seen it. According to records the Schiffmans obtained under the Public Records Act, Mr. Nokes emailed that photo to the Mayor at about 1 p.m. that day, two and a half hours before the hearing.

When the Mayor called for ex parte disclosures, none of the disclosures mentioned that email. A lower height option staff had prepared (“Slide 19”) was never shown. The Council approved 22.5 feet, 5-0. The Schiffmans say they have sued.

The missing facts in the staff report. At Sweetwater, the staff report left out the contamination. At Temple Hills, according to the Schiffmans, the City’s landscape consultant warned that even 20-foot trees could conflict with hedge-height limits, and that warning was left out of the staff report. In both cases, residents had to dig out what the City already had in its files.

The call-up that wasn’t. At 31552 Eagle Rock Way, the Mayor called up a variance on the last day of the appeal period in July 2026, without giving a reason, and withdrew it in September without a hearing.

The indemnity that wasn’t required. When the City approves a contested project, it normally requires the applicant to agree to cover the City’s costs if the approval is challenged in court. At 337 Hawthorne Road, the Design Review Board voted 5-0 in October 2020 to have the owner’s attorney, Mr. Nokes, and then–City Attorney Phil Kohn work out an indemnification agreement. As I reported in December 2023, it was never executed. The City lost the CEQA lawsuit.

As I reported in February 2024, taxpayers then paid $348,000: $275,000 to settle the Historic Preservation Coalition’s attorney fees and $73,000 to the City’s own outside law firm, Rutan & Tucker. The owner paid none of it. No one has explained why the agreement was never signed. The City has since made indemnification a standard condition of approval.

The City as the developer’s lawyer. At Third Avenue, once the owner and architect walked away, the City carried the appeal alone. More than 60 residents wrote asking it to stop. City Manager Kiff defended the appeal as protecting the City’s slope method and “property rights associated with buildable lots.” In fact the lot was declared buildable by Nancy Ciera but never went through the legal entitlement process. A resident who loses at Council pays for their own lawyer and, here, the other side’s appeal costs. An applicant who leaves can count on the City to keep defending the approval.

The price of admission. Staff proposed raising the appeal fee from $748 to $5,707 in 2021, and from $2,000 to $12,000 in 2024. Residents pushed back and the 2024 increase was withdrawn. This year the Council moved appeals to separate “Appeals Days,” and the new efficiency ordinance lets a call-up be withdrawn without a vote.

What a fair hearing would require

None of this needs a new bureaucracy. A few rules would go a long way:

• Register the professionals. Anyone paid to influence a land-use decision should register with the City Clerk and list their clients, the way many California cities already require.

• Put every contact in writing.uncilmembers and board members should log every communication with an applicant, appellant or their representative before a hearing, including texts, emails and site-visit photos, and the log should be posted with the agenda.

• Same evidence, same time. Any exhibit given to a decision-maker should go to the other side and into the public record before the hearing begins.

• Complete staff reports. When the City’s own consultants or records raise a problem, the staff report should say so.

• Require indemnity. Every contested approval should require the applicant to indemnify the City, and the City should not carry an appeal the applicant has abandoned.

• Keep appeals affordable, and vote on call-ups. A resident shouldn’t have to pay thousands of dollars to be heard, and a call-up shouldn’t disappear without a public vote.

Three Council seats are on the November 3 ballot. Ask each candidate whether they will support these rules, and whether they think 5 wins in 31 tries is what a fair hearing looks like.

George Weiss

^{Disclosure: I served on the City Council from 2020 to 2024 and voted on several matters described here: against the Third Avenue house, for sending Sweetwater back, for the 31451 Coast Highway house, against overturning the DRB at 44 S. La Senda, and on the Pacific Edge Hotel. In 2023 I asked Morris Skenderian to lead architects’ input on Fire Station 4. I am working with Dr. Rhett Schiffman on a separate series about his dealings with City Hall. I have endorsed Joy Berry, who led the Laguna Beach Coalition for Environmental Protection in the Third Avenue case, along with Ashley Cintas and Laura Parisi. The people named in this article did nothing unlawful that I know of; representing clients before the City is their job. Sources are City agendas and minutes, Coastal Commission staff reports, court filings, Public Records Act productions, and my own published Council recaps. Nothing here comes from closed session.}

The Weiss Report, Satirical Edition · with apologies to Dr. Seuss

At the center of town where the DG bakes,
And the ghost of the canopy shivers and shakes,
In a gray, shuttered booth on the bricks below,
Sits the Sue-ler alone in the municipal glow.

If you toss lots of green in her campaign pail,
And wait by the barricade’s yellow-taped rail,
She’ll peer through the screen with a sigh, right on cue,
And whisper the tale of the Forest Avenue we knew.

At Moulin’s café, in their linen-blend suits,
In the shade of the Eucas, lounged the Sip-n-Scoots.
They sipped iced lattes and nibbled their scones,
And scrolled away hours on cellular phones.
High up in the branches, the birdies would fly,
Singing songs from the dawn till the dusk drifted by.
And down on the corners, in dappled cool shade,
The Plein-Air-ers painted the light that it made.

The Sue-ler begins with a laugh and a tease,
“This street was historic and bursting with trees.
Not just ordinary timber, oh no, not at all—
Here the Euca Trees stood, majestic and tall.”
With green leaves full and softer than silk,
And sweet, breezy shade cooler than milk.

“Then I, ‘the Sue-ler,’ rolled in with my Opportunity Chart,
With a dream in my head and a plan in my heart.
I looked at those roots lifting blocks out of place,
And I said, “What a waste of developable space!”
She built a small shop where the Eucas made shade,
And chopped down one tree in the dark, unafraid.

Right as the sawdust was settling down,
Out popped a creature of local renown.
From the fresh-cut old stump, with a loud, angry POP,
Jumped a fellow who shouted, “Now listen here! STOP!”

He was shortish and green, with a worn canvas bag,
A brush of a mustache, a yellow name tag.
He straightened his glasses, he cleared out his throat,
And read from a crumpled community note:

“I am the Lorax! I speak for the trees!
I speak for the shade and the coastal breeze!
What is this soulless thing you have made?
You’ve taken our canopy! Stolen our shade! For decades, the Euca gave us it’s grace, And you’ve slapped gray pavers into it’s place.”

“Now look here, old timer,” she chuckled with glee,
I only chopped down one single tree!
There’s a lawsuit each time a root scuffs a Choo,
And Pavers are the fix! Our consultants say too!”

Just then, a trim planner with budget to burn
Walked by and exclaimed, ‘What a splendid return!’
He paid seven-point-two right there on the spot,
And asked how soon he could purchase the lot?

The Lorax went silent, his face turning red,
As dollar signs danced in Sue-ler’s practical head.
She pulled out a walkie and called up the clan—
The movers and shakers, all part of the plan!

From out of nowhere they came, a whole band,
With clipboards and hardhats and blueprints in hand.
They set up the Factory right on the block,
And started cutting and crafting around the clock!

The Lorax returned with a crowd close behind,
With eight hundred names on a petition they’d signed.
They tied yellow ribbons round trunk after trunk,
While the street filled with sawhorses, hammers, and junk.

“Sue-ler!” the Lorax cried, coughing on fumes,
“Look at the Promenade! Look at the glooms!
The Sip-n-Scoots swelter in sunburn and heat!
The DG is blistering under their feet!
There’s no leafy canopy softening the glare,
So they’ve packed up their lattes—and Forest is bare!”

And right at that moment, they heard a loud CRACK!
A sickening shudder, a timber-fall SMACK!
The very last Euca that stood on the street
Came toppling down in a heap at their feet.

No more trees. No more birdies. No more cool, dappled light.
Just a barren expanse that was glaringly bright.
The movers and shakers packed up their machines
And drove off in search of more profitable greens.

George Weiss

On October 13, during Council reports, Councilmember Sue Kempf paused to thank someone most residents have never heard of:

“I also want to mention Lauren Ezzell, who’s our new communications consultant, who’s been putting out information on just a range of topics. … She does an extraordinary job. Very conscientious, working a lot of hours. … She’s a great help to Dave, I know.”

A resident sent me a document suggesting the City was paying its new communications manager about $92,000 for five months of work. Here is what the public record shows.

What the City Is Paying

The City’s check register shows a September 11 check, #23014843, for $18,500 to “Lauren Ezzell” for “Communications Support Services 8/5/26 – 9/5/26.” At $18,500 a month, five months comes to $92,500, paid to her personally, not to a firm.

That works out to be more than $220,000 a year at a time when the City has been moving money out of its Capital Improvement Fund to balance the books.

Her work began August 5, three months before Election Day.

No Council Vote Required

The contract never came to the Council. On October 28, 2025, the Council adopted Ordinance 1723 on its consent calendar, raising the City Manager’s own approval limit from $75,000 to $100,000. This contract came in $7,500 under that line.

The ordinance still requires competition for purchases over $10,000, unless the City Manager invokes an exception such as “sole source,” or “best interest of the City.” The City’s contract routing form, shared with me, shows the “Request for Proposal (RFP)” box is checked, and the “Exception to Competitive Procurement” box is not.

The City’s contract routing form: Aug. 5, 2026 to Jan. 5, 2027, $92,500, signed under the City Manager’s authority. Highlighting was on the copy shared with me.

So, there was a competition, at least on paper. But I could not find the RFP itself, though other City RFPs are easy to find online. I found no communications RFP. Where was it posted, how many applied, and who else scored the finalists? The City also changed its standard contract for this agreement.

A Consultant With a City Title

The contract is for a five-month review and “restructuring” of City communications, with recommendations due in December. To the press and the public, though, Ms. Ezzell is the City’s “Communications Manager” in press statements and on the City’s newsletter page. Yet Councilmember Kempf calls her a “consultant.” Why is a contractor hired to review the City’s communications presented as the person in charge of them?

Her Background

Ms. Ezzell is a Laguna Beach resident and parent, and by Councilmember Kempf’s account a hard worker. Her professional background is in marketing. Her own website describes her work as “at the intersection of brand, digital marketing and social media for the travel and tourism industry,” after nearly eight years in hospitality. Her most recent prior work was at Maple, a family-organizing app.

What I could not find is any public record that she has worked in public information or government communications for any city or public agency before August 2026.

Public information work is its own discipline. It means speaking for the City during fires, landslides, and storms, answering reporters accurately, and serving every resident. Tourism marketing is a different job.

The Centennial, Visit Laguna, and Two Incumbents

Ms. Ezzell’s role in the City’s 100th birthday appears to predate her contract. The September 22 staff report lists her as “Head of Centennial Planning.” Presenting that night, she told the Council:

“Since March, we have sat down with more than 50 community partners, and we have put more than 600 hours of planning into the Centennial.”

Later that evening, Councilmember Kempf described who she works with:

“I just want to thank Lauren and, um, Joanna Bear for their work on the centennial. Mark and I are the subcommittee, so we have meetings every Thursday.”

So, the Centennial subcommittee, Mayor Orgill and Councilmember Kempf, both on the November ballot, meets every Thursday with the contractor hired, without a Council vote, to speak for the City in the final months before their election.

The Council’s January 27, 2026 agenda paired Visit Laguna with the Centennial, listing “Visit Laguna Beach – Stewardship Update (Centennial Update to be heard Friday, January 30, 2026).” Mayor Orgill was appointed by the Council to represent the City on Visit Laguna’s board. I found no public record that Ms. Ezzell has ever worked for or been paid by Visit Laguna Beach.

I found no City payment labeled Centennial in City check registers, and the September 22 staff report says, “The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.” If Centennial money flows through Visit Laguna, it would not show up in City check registers. It seems likely that she is being paid by Visit Laguna since she has spent 600 hours preparing for the Centennial. No one would do that amount of work for free.

Why It Matters Now

The issue is how she was hired, what she was hired to do, and when. A City that wants residents’ trust should not hire its public voice through a process residents cannot see and then present a five-month reviewer as its Communications Manager, while she works weekly with two incumbents three months before they face the voters.

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

Please vote for Measure and for new candidates for the City Council.

George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member and a long-time civic advocate. His investigative reporting on Laguna Beach city government appears regularly on this Substack. Disclosure: I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E (term limits) on the ballot, and I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas, and Laura Parisi

^Sources

• ^{City of Laguna Beach check register, Aug. 29–Sept. 18, 2026 (Oct. 13, 2026 Council packet, Attachment 4), check #23014843.}

• ^{Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 2.30, Purchasing System, as amended by Ordinance 1723; City Council meeting recap, Oct. 28, 2025, Item 6.}

• ^{City Council agendas, June–October 2026 (lagunabeachcity.primegov.com).}

• ^{Staff report, “Laguna Beach Centennial Celebration Update,” Sept. 22, 2026, Item 5.}

• ^{City Council meeting videos, Sept. 22, 2026 (Centennial presentation at 1:02; Kempf at 2:04) and Oct. 13, 2026 (Kempf at 1:20).}

• ^{City Council agenda, Jan. 27, 2026, Item 3; City Council ad hoc committee list, updated Nov. 20, 2025.}

• ^{City Council meeting recap, July 8, 2025 (Visit Laguna board appointment).}

• ^{Patch, “The Laguna Beach Flood Danger Is Real — The Videos Are Fake,” Sept. 10, 2026; Daily Pilot, Crystal Cove slope stabilization, Oct. 21, 2026.}

• ^{City of Laguna Beach Contract Routing Form, Lauren Ezzell agreement (copy shared with the author).}

• ^{laurenezzell.com; linkedin.com/in/laurenezzell.}

This is the third piece in a series. In “Larger Than We Expected”: Laguna’s Rising Sea Was No Surprise, I showed that the City had been warned for years about the coastal damage we saw this fall.

In “No Impact”: The Bluff Study the Public Never Saw, I reported that the environmental study the Council ordered for the Bluff Overlay ordinance in 2023 was completed. The consultant concluded the ordinance would have “No Impact” on landslides and erosion, the study drew 16 warnings from the City Attorney’s law firm, and it was never released.

That ordinance is usually described as a fix for older oceanfront homes. It reached further. Hotels, restaurants and shops on the bluffs would have been able to apply for the same reduced setbacks, and in some cases to build onto the bluff face.

In 2023, staff would not give the Council direct answers about what the ordinance would mean for commercial properties. This article tries to answer that question with the City’s own records.

Commercially zoned oceanfront lots (red) and bluff and seawall failures since 2025 (stars).

What the ordinance offered commercial owners

The March 7, 2023 ordinance and the City’s 2024 draft study list the zones whose oceanfront lots could apply to join the Bluff Overlay District. Besides residential zones, they include Local Business, Commercial-Neighborhood, Commercial Hotel-Motel, Resort, Central Bluffs and South Laguna Village Commercial.

An eligible commercial lot would have had the same options as a home. If its own geotechnical study found “stable” erosion, it could seek a “modified blufftop setback” of less than 25 feet. Where the legal building site already reaches onto the bluff, it could seek a “bluff encroachment” onto the bluff face itself. The ordinance did not guarantee approval. Each application needed a peer-reviewed study and seven special findings.

Three provisions matter most for these properties:

• The Planning Commission would decide. Under the proposed §25.09.005, the Commission would hear “all nonresidential development” and “all projects located in the Downtown Specific Plan area.” That takes in nearly every lot on the list below.

• The Director could interpret the rules and the maps. Section 25.09.002 says: “The Director has the authority to interpret the meaning of provisions of this chapter, including maps, and their applicability and enforceability.” The maps decide which stretches of coast are rated “stable.”

• A missing bluff edge was not a barrier. Under §25.09.008, “If no bluff edge occurs on the legal building site, the bluff edge determination may instead depict the location of the bluff edge on adjacent lots for reference purposes.” The ordinance gives no standard for how that reference line is then applied. In practice, that leaves the setback on such lots to case-by-case judgment.

One more provision deserves attention. A bluff encroachment could not go farther seaward than existing development, “except in cases where the existing development is not consistent with the development pattern.” On a block of older commercial buildings, “pattern of development” is an argument an applicant could make in either direction.

The 26 lots

The City has never published a list of the commercial properties the ordinance would have covered. The draft study says the district covers about 500 oceanfront parcels, “approximately 95 percent” of them zoned residential. That leaves roughly 25 that are not.

To find them, I used the City’s public GIS. It has a layer called “Oceanfront,” drawn in April 2020 while the erosion study was under way. I matched that area against the City’s parcel and zoning data and kept privately owned, commercially zoned lots inside it. The result is 26 addresses, the same number I recalled from the 2023 hearings.

This is a reconstruction from City data, not an official list. The City never labeled that layer as the overlay boundary, and a few other commercial lots sit just outside it. Those include Laguna Riviera’s parcel on St. Ann’s Drive, several C-1 lots near 800 and 1600 South Coast Highway, and the Montage.

The downtown cluster: Hotel Laguna to Sleepy Hollow Lane.

Twenty of the 26 sit in a single half-mile from Main Beach to Sleepy Hollow Lane, in the Central Bluffs and Commercial Hotel-Motel zones. Those zones are in the Downtown Specific Plan and are designated for visitor-serving commercial uses. The rest are along South Coast Highway between St. Ann’s Drive and the Surf & Sand.

A note on the hotels on the sand. On March 7, 2023, the Community Development Director told the Council the ordinance “doesn’t cover properties that are on sand or on the beach,” and the ordinance bars any encroachment onto sandy beach. Some properties, like the Surf & Sand, are already built on the beach with the hotel itself acting as a seawall. The lots on this list are bluff-top parcels. Some, including Hotel Laguna’s, run down to the beach, but the ordinance would have applied to the bluff portions.

What the City’s erosion study says about these blocks

The ordinance rested on a 2022 erosion study by TerraCosta Consulting Group. TerraCosta called it a “desktop study” and wrote that “field verification of these conditions was not within the scope of services.” Even so, it recorded problems on and near these lots.

• Main Beach to Cleo Street (Reach 8), the downtown cluster. The study notes “a landslide at 683-685 Sleepy Hollow,” next to lot 20, and “two surficial failures at 557 South Coast Highway,” between lots 8 and 9. It rates the reach “Low” erosion, “and Medium where bluff failures have occurred.”

• Rockpile Beach at Heisler Park (Reach 7), just north. The study rates it “Medium” because of “potentially adverse geology, localized landsliding, and bluff seepage.” On January 5, 2026, a rockslide came down onto the beach below 457 Cliff Drive, and firefighters closed the path above it “due to continuous sloughing of the hillside.”

Farther south, near lots 24 to 26, the City closed the beach below 1771 Ocean Way in September over “a potential seawall failure,” and firefighters found the beach stairs at 1715 Ocean Way “eroding away from the bottom.”

None of this means any of these lots would have been approved for a smaller setback. Each would have needed its own study. But the ordinance let a single property’s consultant decide whether its lot was “stable.”

What the Coastal Commission’s rules say about older buildings

The 25-foot setback is not written into the Coastal Act itself. It comes from Laguna’s own Local Coastal Program, which the Coastal Commission certified in 1993. Land Use Element Action 10.2.7 requires new development on oceanfront bluffs to be sited “in accordance with the stringline but not less than 25 feet from the bluff edge.”

The Coastal Act sets the broader rule. Section 30253 requires new development to “assure stability and structural integrity” and not to “require the construction of protective devices that would substantially alter natural landforms along bluffs and cliffs.”

Many of the buildings on the bluffs, commercial and residential, predate the Coastal Act, which took effect on January 1, 1977. Hotel Laguna opened in 1930. Here is how the rules treat buildings like these:

• They can stay. A building that was legal when it was built is “legal nonconforming.” It can be repaired and maintained. Under Land Use Element Action 7.3.10, as the City’s 2023 staff report describes it, such structures “may not increase the size or degree of nonconformity, regardless of whether the improvements constitute a major remodel.”

• Rebuilding resets the clock. Once the work rises to a major remodel, roughly half the structure replaced or a 50 percent addition, the City’s 2024 draft study explains that “the structure is treated as new development, and the blufftop setback applies to the existing structure as though it were newly proposed.” The 2023 staff report adds that such projects must “correct existing encroachments into the blufftop setback.”

• Laguna has already tested that rule. At 11 Lagunita Drive, a 1950s home on the bluff above Victoria Beach had been allowed a seawall on the condition that the approval would end if the house were “redeveloped in a manner that constitutes new development.” After new owners took it down to the frame in 2016 under City permits for “repair and maintenance,” the Coastal Commission found it was new development, fined them $1 million and ordered the seawall removed. In 11 Lagunita, LLC v. California Coastal Commission (2020), the Court of Appeal upheld both, holding that what the City called the work did not control. The California Supreme Court declined review in 2021.

  It may be no coincidence that the City was preparing its own major-remodel rules and the Bluff Overlay ordinance while this case moved through the courts. The erosion study behind the ordinance is dated July 2020, five months before the appellate ruling, and the ordinance reached the Planning Commission in April 2022.

• Seawalls are for pre-1977 structures. Section 30235 of the Coastal Act allows seawalls to protect “existing structures.” In December 2024, in Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission, the Court of Appeal held that “existing” means existing when the Coastal Act took effect on January 1, 1977. A 1972 apartment building in Half Moon Bay could be protected; a neighboring 1984 condominium could not. The California Supreme Court declined to review the ruling.

• New and rebuilt projects give up seawalls. In Lindstrom v. California Coastal Commission (2019), the Court of Appeal upheld a 60-to-62-foot bluff setback in Encinitas and a permanent waiver of future armoring. The court reasoned that the waiver “precludes the Lindstroms from arguing in 20 years that their home is no longer new.”

• The same rules apply to homes and commercial buildings. The Coastal Act’s hazard rules apply to all “development,” and Laguna’s 25-foot standard applies to “all new development located on oceanfront bluffs.” The Act does give visitor-serving commercial uses such as hotels priority over private residential use of coastal land (Section 30222). That priority governs what land is used for, not how close to the edge a building may sit.

That is why the Bluff Overlay ordinance mattered so much to the owners of older bluff-top buildings, commercial ones included. It offered a way around those rules: a case-by-case reduced setback, or a bluff encroachment, for nonconforming oceanfront lots. The City’s draft study called it a way to avoid “a regulatory taking.”

The City says it drafted the overlay “with guidance from the Coastal Commission staff.” Any version would still have needed the Commission’s certification as an amendment to the Local Coastal Program. It never got that far.

Who would have benefited

The ordinance was presented as a way to let owners of aging oceanfront homes rebuild. The ownership records show who those owners are. Using Orange County Assessor data in the City’s GIS, updated in April 2026, I counted 509 single-family homes in the City’s oceanfront area, close to the City’s own figure of about 500 oceanfront homes.

• Few are primary residences. Only 94 (18%) claim the homeowner’s exemption, the County’s test for a primary residence. Even counting homes whose tax bill goes to the house itself, at most 166 (33%) appear to be their owners’ primary homes. Two-thirds do not.

• Most tax bills leave town. 292 (57%) are mailed outside Laguna Beach, 89 of them out of state, from Arizona and Nevada to New York and Florida.

• Most are held in trusts or companies. About 86% are titled to trusts or LLCs rather than to individuals by name.

Most of the benefit of reduced bluff setbacks would go to owners who do not live in these homes. Add the 26 commercial lots, and the people who stood to gain were largely second-home owners, investors and businesses, while the risk of a failing bluff falls on the public beach below.

These are counts from public records, not names. Some full-time residents never file for the exemption, and homes held in LLCs cannot claim it, so 18 percent understates residents somewhat; 33 percent is a generous upper bound. Owner categories are based on how the title is recorded and are approximate.

What hasn’t changed

The City’s new design review “efficiency” ordinance, adopted in July and listed in the City’s online code as Ordinance 1730, did not touch the 25-foot bluff setback. Its only change to that chapter of the code concerns fences. It also makes a major remodel subject to current standards, which keeps the setback in force for remodels.

No appeal can waive the 25-foot setback itself. Shrinking it for these lots would take a variance or a revived Bluff Overlay ordinance. That ordinance has never been withdrawn, and the City has already paid for most of the environmental work needed to adopt it.

What the Council should do

The asks are the same as in my last article, with one addition.

• Withdraw the Bluff Overlay ordinance by recorded vote.

• Release the 2024 draft study and its comments.

• Affirm the 25-foot setback in the General Plan.

• Publish the list. If a future Council revives any version of the ordinance, the City should publish the list of commercial properties it would cover, with a map, before the first hearing. Residents should not have to rebuild that list from GIS layers.

Three of the four council members who voted to advance the ordinance in March 2023 are on the November 3 ballot: Sue Kempf made the motion, Alex Rounaghi seconded it, and Mayor Mark Orgill voted yes.

George Weiss

Disclosure: I served on the City Council from 2020 to 2024 and cast the only vote against advancing the Bluff Overlay ordinance on March 7, 2023. I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas and Laura Parisi, and I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot.

^{Sources: City Council staff report and proposed ordinance, March 7, 2023 (Granicus archive); Administrative Draft Bluff Overlay District Initial Study, May 2024; TerraCosta Consulting Group, Shoreline Geology and Erosion Assessment, rev. Jan. 7, 2022; City of Laguna Beach public GIS (parcel, zoning and “Oceanfront” layers); Design Review Efficiency Ordinance, June 23, 2026 Council agenda, Item 27; Laguna Beach Fire Department incident reports and Marine Safety emails, 2025–2026; Stu News Laguna, March 14, 2023. Map imagery: Esri World Imagery. California Coastal Act, Public Resources Code §§ 30222, 30235 and 30253; Laguna Beach Land Use Element Actions 7.3.10 and 10.2.7; Casa Mira Homeowners Association v. California Coastal Commission (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 2024; review denied 2025); Lindstrom v. California Coastal Commission (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 73. 11 Lagunita, LLC v. California Coastal Commission (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 18, 2020; review denied Mar. 2021); California Coastal Commission press release, Aug. 2018. Orange County Assessor parcel records as published in City of Laguna Beach GIS (updated April 2, 2026).}

On Monday, voters in Laguna Beach received a text message from Mayor Mark Orgill. It opens: “I’m proud to be endorsed by the Democratic Party of Orange County.”

Mark Orgill was not a registered Democrat until a little more than two weeks ago.

What the record shows

• Before October 10, 2026: Orgill was registered as No Party Preference.

• October 10, 2026: His voter registration record, below, shows Orgill’s current registration. That was after mail ballots went out to Laguna voters, and 24 days before Election Day.

• October 26, 2026: The Democratic Party of Orange County endorsed him.

• October 27, 2026: His campaign texted Laguna voters touting the endorsement.

Orgill’s voter registration record, showing his party as Democrat and his current registration date as October 10, 2026. Phone, email, address, birthdate and ID numbers have been redacted.

As of this writing, the party’s own list of endorsed candidates still shows only two Laguna Beach City Council candidates: Sue Kempf and Alex Rounaghi. Orgill’s name is not there. The OC Indivisible voter guide, which tracks Democratic Party support, likewise lists the party behind Kempf and Rounaghi, but not Orgill.

Why it matters

City Council races in Laguna Beach are nonpartisan. Party labels do not appear on the ballot, and a councilmember’s party registration rarely matters for fixing sidewalks or approving budgets. That is exactly why the timing deserves a hard look.

Democrats are the largest group of voters in Laguna Beach, roughly 42 percent of the electorate, compared with about 28 percent Republicans and 21 percent with no party preference. A Democratic Party endorsement is one of the most valuable things a candidate can carry into the final weeks of a Laguna race. Orgill could not receive it as a No Party Preference voter or as an registered Independent.

The Sequence: Ballots go out. Orgill re-registers as a Democrat. The party endorses him. Days before the election, his campaign tells voters he is proud of that endorsement.

Voters can draw their own conclusions about whether this reflects a change of conviction or a change of strategy.

George Weiss

Disclosure: I served on the Laguna Beach City Council from 2020 to 2024. I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas and Laura Parisi, and I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot.

^{Sources: Mark Orgill for Laguna Council 2026 campaign text message to voters, Oct. 27, 2026 (FPPC #1494770); Democratic Party of Orange County, endorsement eligibility page and endorsed-candidates list (accessed Oct. 28, 2026); OC Indivisible Coalition, 2026 General Election Endorsements and Recommendations; Orange County voter registration records; Greater Laguna Beach GOP candidates forum, Sept. 23, 2026 (registration figures as cited by the moderator).}

Sue Kempf is asking voters for a third term. Her campaign talks about wildfire safety, and she has real accomplishments there. Trees are a different story. Long before the Midnight Massacre on Forest Avenue, residents who care about Laguna’s canopy knew where she stood. Here is her record, in order, with what is documented, what is inferred, and what still needs confirming. There is more but I have not included her full record on tree removals.

Before she held office

Bluebird Canyon, 2011–2012. In October 2011, Ms. Kempf, then co-chair of the City’s Disaster Preparedness Committee, saw an Edison crew checking power lines on her street and reported it to the City. Edison wanted five eucalyptus near the lines removed, and the Council backed Edison 4-1. Edison later withdrew, but the issue did not go away.

A City arborist reviewed all 31 City-owned eucalyptus in the canyon and recommended removing 11. At a June 2012 community meeting, Ms. Kempf defended the process: “We are looking at 31 trees, 11 that need to come out. Not all the trees are going to disappear.” It sure sounds like she and the council had already made a decision. Neighbors Mace and Virginia Morse paid for a second arborist who recommended pruning instead. In October 2012, after a 28-speaker hearing, the Council voted 4-1 to cut the 11 trees down.

Fire safety was a legitimate concern, and Ms. Kempf pursued it through proper channels. But the episode set a pattern that would recur: when removal and pruning or better tree maintemance were options, she favored removal.

The 2009 hedge dispute. Two years earlier, as a private resident, Ms. Kempf and a neighbor filed a hedge-height claim against another neighbor whose plantings blocked their ocean view. That neighbor called the police twice over their trimming. They said the trimming followed a written agreement. The City’s landscape consultant ruled in her favor, and the Design Review Board upheld that ruling unanimously. The record shows a view dispute that she won through the City’s process, not a finding of wrongdoing.

On the Council: the votes

Mermaid Street, December 2018. Within weeks of taking office, Ms. Kempf was on the Council when it approved removing two large eucalyptus on Mermaid Street. The City’s own Level 3 testing had found the trunks 97 to 100 percent solid and recommended pruning, not removal. Staff recommended removal anyway, citing a lack of “consensus” among arborists and the worry that pruning would leave the trees “aesthetically unacceptable.”

The Urth Caffé eucalyptus, September 2019. The Council voted to remove the eucalyptus at Urth Caffé, over horticulturist Ruben Flores’s objection that the tree was healthy and should be topped instead.

The Downtown Action Plan, March 2020. The plan called for removing and replacing 115 downtown street trees, most of them on Forest Avenue and Broadway, while adding 151 new ones. Residents protested the loss of mature shade trees that would take decades to replace. Ms. Kempf supported the plan.

The roundabout gum tree, October 2023. City staff recommended removing a nearly century-old lemon-scented gum at the El Camino del Mar roundabout, blaming roots possibly cut during City sidewalk work, though no evidence showed the anchor roots had been cut.

Residents including Chris Reed, Ann Christoph, Bob Borthwick and Ruben Flores opposed removal. Councilmember Orgill and I asked for a Level 3 assessment first. Ms. Kempf joined Mayor Whalen and Councilmember Rounaghi in voting 3-2 to remove the tree without it. It took further public pressure to get the testing done.

The one vote for trees. In December 2021, the Council voted 5-0 for a public tree policy giving residents a say in replacement trees and a hearing on new plantings. Ms. Kempf voted yes. It is the only tree vote of hers in the record that went the trees’ way.

Ruby’s: eight years of looking away

When Ruby’s Diner cut down its approved eucalyptus without a permit in June 2017, the outcry led the Council to adopt Ordinance 1630, with fines of up to $15,000 per tree. Ruby’s then removed a second eucalyptus without a permit after the fines took effect. Ms. Kempf has been on the Council for every year since. No fine has been imposed, no acceptable replanting plan has been approved, and this summer staff recommended a plan with five small madrones that the Planning Commission refused to accept. The Council sets the City’s enforcement priorities. In eight years, I have found no instance of Ms. Kempf asking why the City’s strongest tree law has never been used against its most famous violator.

The Promenade

As the two-member committee guiding the Promenade design, Councilmember Kempf and Mayor Orgill chose SWA—a firm whose existing Downtown Action Plan called for felling 115 downtown trees. Yet when Ms. Kempf helped seal the permanent design in February 2025, it was proudly promoted as “incorporating more greenery.” This is greenwashing at its finest: using corporate eco-speak to disguise a concrete reality.

On the night of April 20, 2026, after a eucalyptus fell when its tree well was excavated, crews cut down nine more mature eucalyptus on lower Forest Avenue within hours of an emergency Zoom meeting. Sixteen trees were gone from a project that had disclosed five. Staff and arborists made the call under an emergency exemption, and the Council never voted.

But the Council chose the design, the contractor and the construction approach that put those trees at risk, and Ms. Kempf led that work. Ms. Kempf issued no independent public statement, apology, or dissenting release regarding the overnight April removals, allowing City Manager Dave Kiff and Mayor Mark Orgill to handle public communications on safety grounds, while she and the Council received the staff report without formal Council action at the April 28, 2026 meeting. (Mayor Orgill admitted only that the city could have “communicated better.”)

Residents also remember what they were told. Deborah Laughton’s campaign ad quotes Ms. Kempf as promising to protect downtown’s large shade trees and saying the Promenade trees would be protected during construction. [[[Confirm the date and source of each quote before publishing.]]]

Her stewardship role

In August 2024, the Council created the Stewardship and Visitor Impact Committee, led by Ms. Kempf and Mayor Orgill, with a mandate that includes environmental and heritage preservation. She has been photographed planting trees on Arbor Day. Those are the words and the photo opportunities. The votes, the Promenade and the silence on Ruby’s are the record.

What’s next: Ocean Avenue

The Ocean Avenue and Beach Street project, where an arborist report identified seven trees for removal and Public Works planned to follow the Promenade’s nighttime, tree-by-tree approach, was tabled by the Planning Commission on Sept. 2. It will come back to the next Council.

Her record says what she has done. Her actions and answers show whether a third term would not be any different.

Thanks for reading,

George

Sources

• Barbara Diamond, Coastline Pilot coverage of the Bluebird Canyon eucalyptus (2011–2012), including “Council approves removal of 11 eucalyptus trees” (Oct. 4, 2012).

• Design Review Board record of the 2009 Bluebird Canyon hedge-height appeal (Dec. 10, 2009).

• City staff report on the Mermaid Street eucalyptus with Dudek’s Level 3 testing (2018).

• Patch, “Laguna Tree Lover Fights Bedraggled Urth Caffé Eucalyptus” (Sept. 27, 2019).

• Laguna Beach Indy, “City’s plan to refresh downtown gets mixed reviews” (Downtown Action Plan tree figures).

• My City Council recaps of Dec. 14, 2021, Oct. 10 and Oct. 24, 2023, and Nov. 7, 2023.

• LBMC Chapter 12.06 (Ordinance 1630); South Laguna Civic Association letter on Ruby’s (Aug. 18, 2026); Ann Christoph, “Village Matters—Ruby’s.”

• City Council agenda, April 28, 2026; CEQAnet Notice of Exemption for the Forest Avenue eucalyptus (May 5, 2026); CBS Los Angeles (April 2026).

• Deborah Laughton campaign advertisement (October 2026); Stewardship and Visitor Impact Ad Hoc Committee (August 2024).

• SoLaguna, “Ocean Avenue Improvements Put on Hold in Laguna Beach” (September 2026).

Could you do me a favor and take this poll. It doesn’t take long to complete.

Take by clicking HERE.

Thanks, George

On October 10, I wrote that the Bluff Overlay ordinance was still in limbo. The Council advanced it 4-1 in March 2023 over my lone no vote, then on April 4, 2023 voted 5-0 to keep it alive and order an Initial Study under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). I could find no later Council agenda that approved a contract for that study or brought the ordinance back.

City records I have since obtained explain why. The study was done by a consultant working under an on-call contract the City Manager signed, without a separate Council vote. Its May 2024 draft concluded that the ordinance would have “No Impact” on landslides, erosion, and unstable soils.

While it was being written, the City Attorney’s law firm warned 16 times that it was improperly putting off analysis of foreseeable impacts. Then it was set aside, never circulated for public review, and never withdrawn.

Since then, Laguna’s bluffs and seawalls have been failing one after another.

A study that never came to the Council

On August 19, 2022, City Manager Shohreh Dupuis signed Agreement No. 22-60 with Rincon Consultants, an on-call contract for “historic, biological, and CEQA consulting services” through June 30, 2025. It caps spending at $280 an hour and $75,000 per fiscal year. Under an on-call contract, staff can assign work to the consultant without returning to the Council.

Rincon’s proposal, dated May 12, 2023 and marked approved in the City’s files, came to $56,831. Its first tasks included a “Peer Review of Applicant-Prepared Shoreline Geology & Erosion Assessment,” the TerraCosta erosion report the ordinance rests on. On February 2, 2024, Rincon asked principal planner Anthony Viera for $18,072 more to take the study through public review to a final Negative Declaration. That brought the total to $74,903, just under the contract’s $75,000 annual cap.

Rincon expected a fight. Its amendment budgeted for up to 45 public comments and five lengthy comment letters, citing “our understanding of the litigious nature of CEQA review in the city.” The public review never happened, so that budget was never needed.

What the study concluded

The May 2024 Administrative Draft Initial Study covers about 500 oceanfront parcels along 7.5 miles of coastline, roughly 95 percent of them residential. Under the ordinance, owners of lots rated “stable erosion” could apply for a “modified blufftop setback” of less than 25 feet.

Where a legal building site already extends onto the bluff, they could apply for a “bluff encroachment” onto the bluff face itself. The TerraCosta report rates 17 of the City’s 18 shoreline reaches at 0.2 feet of erosion a year or less, so most bluff-top lots would qualify. The report itself says it provides “general guidance for planning purposes only.”

The draft would also move the 25-foot, and 10-foot setback references out of the General Plan and into the Zoning Code, where a future Council majority can change them by ordinance. It lists the benefits as the City sees them. The ordinance “sets an important Statewide precedent” and sets parameters “while avoiding a regulatory taking.”

Its conclusion is a Negative Declaration, the lightest form of CEQA review: no significant effects, no mitigation required. Every geology question is marked “No Impact”: landslides, “substantial soil erosion,” and soils that are “unstable, or that would become unstable.” The reason is the same throughout. The ordinance “is a policy change document and does not include any development or ground-disturbing activities,” so any risk would be studied later, project by project.

What the City’s own lawyers said

The draft keeps its 244 reviewer comments, and they are the most revealing part of the record. Hannah Park of Best Best & Krieger (BBK), the City Attorney’s firm, wrote the same warning 16 times in the margins:

“We want to be careful about improperly deferring analysis of reasonably foreseeable impacts to a later stage of review to avoid addressing them here. Do we have any sort of reliable data here to prepare a meaningful and accurate report of the project’s reasonably foreseeable impacts, rather than saying that there are no impacts because this is a policy change document and does not include any development?”

In another comment she was blunter: “CEQA does not permit the lead agency to defer an analysis of reasonably foreseeable significant environmental impacts to a later stage of review to avoid addressing those impacts in a first-tier environmental document.”

When Mr. Viera wrote that the citywide code changes “generally won’t create reasonably foreseeable changes in the environment,” BBK’s Alisha Winterswyk replied: “Why wouldn’t city wide changes have the possibility of creating reasonably foreseeable changes in the environment?” He answered that they could in general, but not these, “in my assessment.”

Rincon added citywide discussion and more explanation in response. But the “No Impact” findings on landslides, erosion and unstable soils stayed as they were, resting on the same “policy change document” reasoning the lawyers had questioned. The draft went no further.

Then the bluffs moved

The study treated landslide and erosion risk as a question for later. Here is part of what has happened since, drawn from City emails and Fire Department incident reports I obtained, along with news coverage:

Date What happened Jan. 31, 2025Marine Safety Chief Kai Bond orders a “significant closure” of the beach at 9th Street because of a landslide, to be kept “until we receive additional information from the geologist.” Jan. 5, 2026A rockslide comes down onto the beach below 457 Cliff Drive, near Heisler Park. Firefighters close the walking path above it “due to continuous sloughing of the hillside,” and Public Works calls in a geologist.Late Aug. 2026Surf overwhelms a seawall below Pearl Street. The family says the drop behind the home is now 18 to 20 feet.Sept. 3, 2026Community Development

Director Matt Schneider warns of “a potential seawall failure at 1771 Ocean Way” and asks Marine Safety to close the beach below it before a holiday-weekend swell.Sept. 10, 2026The City declares a local emergency. Six homes on Ocean Way and Lagunita Drive are yellow-tagged, and part of the Aliso Beach parking lot fails. Sept. 29, 2026 Firefighters find the second landing of the beach stairway at 1715 Ocean Way “eroding away from the bottom” in high tide and surf.Sept. 29–30, 2026A large section of bluff collapses beneath the Agate Street lookout. The stairs remain closed.

Drone photo attached to a Feb. 1, 2025 Marine Safety email on the 9th Street Beach landslide. The yellow line marks the closure.

The September 3 emails are telling. At 5:01 p.m. that Thursday, Coastal Commission analyst Amber Dobson asked the City: “In the absence of any proposed plans from the property owner, will the City be directing folks to stay away from the compromised wall during the holiday weekend?” She added, “The last seawall that fell in Laguna fell onto the sand.”

Nine minutes later Mr. Schneider proposed the closure. Marine Safety later reported “very little sand below the property, so any medium or high tides prevent access.” Mr. Viera, the planner who managed the bluff study, was copied on the thread.

The Pearl Street beach access closure, Sept. 4, 2026, from Marine Safety’s email on the 1771 Ocean Way seawall.

None of this proves that any single failure would have been prevented by a larger setback. Several involve seawalls and stairways rather than homes on the bluff top. But the study’s central premise was that bluff and erosion risks could safely be left for later.

This year has shown that “later” arrives quickly, and that it falls on beachgoers, lifeguards, and neighbors as well as on the owners who would build closer to the edge. As I reported in “Larger Than We Expected”: Laguna’s Rising Sea Was No Surprise, the City’s own 2024 Climate Vulnerability Assessment had already flagged these risks, and its 2025 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan called for shoreline monitoring and protecting public infrastructure. Little of that has been done.

Why it still matters

An unreleased draft is not a dead one. The Council has never withdrawn the ordinance, and the City has already paid for most of the environmental work needed to adopt it. A future Council could circulate the Negative Declaration, adopt it, and send the ordinance to the Coastal Commission, with no vote on the study along the way except the final one.

Three of the four councilmembers who voted to advance the ordinance in March 2023 are on the November 3 ballot. Sue Kempf made the motion, Alex Rounaghi seconded it, and Mayor Mark Orgill voted yes. None has publicly asked for it to be withdrawn.

George Weiss

Disclosure: I served on the City Council from 2020 to 2024 and cast the only vote against advancing the Bluff Overlay ordinance on March 7, 2023. I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas and Laura Parisi, and I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot.

^{Sources: Consultant Services Agreement No. 22-60 with Rincon Consultants (Aug. 19, 2022); Rincon’s Bluff Overlay District Initial Study proposal (May 12, 2023) and its Feb. 2, 2024 scope and fee amendment; the City’s Administrative Draft Bluff Overlay District Initial Study (May 2024) with reviewer comments; Marine Safety emails on the 9th Street Beach landslide (Jan. 31–Feb. 1, 2025) and the 1771 Ocean Way seawall (Sept. 3–4, 2026); Laguna Beach Fire Department incident reports F2600051 (Jan. 5, 2026) and F2603237 (Sept. 29, 2026); Stu News Laguna (March 14, 2023); ABC7 (Sept. 4, 2026); FOX 11 (Sept. 11, 2026).}

Dear Readers,

This fall, our coastline has unraveled. Parking lots, stairways, bluffs, and Pacific Coast Highway itself have failed, one after another. Forecasters warn of a powerful El Niño this winter, yet City officials continue to treat each catastrophic failure as an unforeseeable act of nature. It was not a surprise. The City was warned in writing, repeatedly, over the last decade. It even documented the solutions. Then, the City Council diverted the money elsewhere.

Ten Weeks of Predictable Collapse

Late August (Pearl Street): High surf broke through the residential seawall of a home built in 1951. Where private steps once led safely down to the sand, a family member told ABC7: “Currently it’s like an 18-to-20-foot drop.”

The failure left the foundational underpinnings exposed to incoming tides, illustrating how rapidly unprotected bluffs erode once toe support is washed away.

The collapsed seawall below the Pearl Street residence, as seen from ABC7 AIR7 helicopter, September 3, 2026. (Image: ABC7 Los Angeles)

September 10 (Lagunita & Ocean Way): Swells from former Hurricane Marie stripped sand from Laguna’s beaches, and the City declared a local emergency. Six oceanfront homes along Ocean Way and Lagunita Drive were yellow-tagged after their seawalls were damaged.

The damage confirmed warnings that repeated tropical swell pulses will directly batter structural footings when sand buffers disappear.

Broken seawalls below oceanfront homes on Lagunita Drive, September 11, 2026. Six residences were yellow-tagged. (Photo: KTLA Sky5)

Collapsing Bluffs & Downtown Inundation

September 29–30 (Agate Street): A large section of bluff beneath the Agate Street lookout broke free and fell into the sea while a resident on the landing above was on the phone reporting a widening crack. The stairs remain closed while a City geologist reviews them.

The lower observation deck now hangs precariously over a fresh cliff scar and fallen boulders—eight years after the City spent roughly $1 million rebuilding these stairs following storm damage.

The Agate Street lookout after the September collapse; fallen boulders litter the surf below. (Photo: Laguna Beach Patch)

Comment: While our bluffs were giving way, this Council had been headed in the other direction. In March 2023, Sue Kempf moved and Alex Rounaghi seconded a Bluff Overlay ordinance, with Mark Orgill’s vote, that would have let some bluff-top owners build closer to the edge. It was shelved only after residents showed the City’s erosion analysis ignored the landslides and rockfalls they could see for themselves, and it has never been withdrawn. A year later, the City’s own climate study still said the City was “exploring” a Bluff Overlay District, and counted it as an “opportunity.” Read about that Ordinance HERE.

October 8–9 (Main Beach & Broadway): High tides and surf pushed seawater across Coast Highway and into Broadway on two consecutive mornings, and police closed Broadway on the 9th.

City Manager Dave Kiff stated the swell was “actually larger than we expected.”

Comment: Ah, Dave”: The City’s own 2024 study warned that seawater would flood downtown streets. The ocean isn’t exceeding expectations. It’s right on schedule.

Seawater on Broadway at Coast Highway, October 9, 2026. (Photo: City of Laguna Beach)

High tide pushes seawater over Main Beach toward the boardwalk and Coast Highway, October 9, 2026. (Photo: City of Laguna Beach)

Mid-October (PCH at El Moro): Just up the coast in Crystal Cove State Park, a 360-foot-long, two-foot-wide tension crack ruptured the bluff directly supporting Pacific Coast Highway. Caltrans shut a southbound lane and estimated the fix at $4 million, starting with slope tarps and then rock armor at the base of the bluff.

This failure underscores how fragile our primary regional artery is along an unarmored coastline.

The 360-foot tension crack beneath PCH at El Moro, October 2026. (Photo: City of Laguna Beach)

Public Stairways & Parking Lots Submerged

Pearl Street Public Beach Stairs: The municipal Pearl Street staircase is closed. The surf has reached and exposed a caisson footing beneath stairs the City spent approximately $1.78 million to rebuild in 2019.

In 2023–24, the City placed $100,000 worth of rock riprap on either side; the surf washed behind them anyway, demonstrating that patch jobs fail to protect public infrastructure.

Exposed caisson footing beneath the Pearl Street public beach stairs, rebuilt in 2019 for $1.78M.

Aliso Beach West Parking Lot: Repeated storm swells undercut the asphalt and compromised the electrical and plumbing lines running beneath the lot. After the first damage on August 31, Mayor Mark Orgill remarked: “I’ve seen it, not quite this bad. This is a little bit unusual.”

On October 14, the City shuttered the lot indefinitely under emergency permits. Responding with emergency sand and hazard tape is necessary, but reactive triage is not an adaptation plan.

The wrecked Aliso Beach parking lot in October; closed indefinitely for emergency repairs. (Photo: City of Laguna Beach)

Comment: Yes, Mr. Orgill, the extensive damage to city infrastructure that residents use is very unusual and will cost millions to fix. But it was predictable. Meanwhile the City Council wants to spend 1.5 million to take out 40 trees and refurbish Ocean Avenue. The plan was roundly denounced by residents recent Town Hall meeting. On Forest Avenue, arborist reports were the City’s justification for removing the trees, too. See my article on that HERE.

The Lesson of Ten Weeks: Nearly every public asset that failed this fall—beach access stairways, downtown streets along Coast Highway, and shoreline parking—was named as at risk in the City’s own 2024 study.

What It Will Cost

No one has put a price on this fall’s damage yet. The City hasn’t released a cost for rebuilding the Aliso lot, where, its Community Development Director said, “a lot of the electrical and plumbing is running under this section, and it’s compromised,” or for reopening the Agate and Pearl Street stairs. History gives a sense of the bill. The City rebuilt the Agate stairs for about $1 million after storms closed them in 2015, and the Pearl Street stairs cost about $1.78 million in 2019, plus about $100,000 for boulders in 2023. Both are closed due to wave damage and rock slides.

And the City’s cushion is shrinking. On October 13, the same night it ratified its second coastal emergency of the fall, the Council took $500,000 from its Disaster Contingency Fund for legal analysis of options to keep Mission Hospital’s emergency room open, dropping the fund from $7.4 million to $6.9 million. That may be money well spent, but whatever this winter brings, the City will pay for it out of a smaller reserve. With budget deficits on the horizon where will the money come from?

The Warnings on the Shelf & Regional Progress

None of this was unforeseeable. In 2016, the Coastal Commission warned that Laguna’s low-lying downtown was acutely vulnerable, that Aliso Beach walkways were frequently washed out, and that Laguna had no vulnerability assessment. In April 2024, the City’s Climate Vulnerability Assessment, part of its $426,000 climate plan, modeled up to 6.7 feet of sea-level rise by 2100. In February 2025, City Council unanimously adopted the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which calls on the City to take these coastal actions:

1. Action 22.1: Elevate or armor public parking lots, staircases, and boardwalks, prioritizing Main Beach and Aliso Beach.

2. Action 22.3: Protect Coast Highway between Broadway, Park Avenue, and Forest Avenue.

3. Action 21.1: Establish active shoreline monitoring with binding action thresholds.

4. Action 21.13 & 21.3: Address rising groundwater downtown and move or protect vulnerable sewer and utility lines along PCH. The PCH sewer main is the only route to the Coastal Treatment Plant, and we can’t afford to lose it.

5. California Senate Bill 272, coastal cities must add a sea-level-rise adaptation plan, approved by the Coastal Commission, to their Local Coastal Programs by 2034, and cities with approved plans get priority for state adaptation funding.

While Laguna stalled, our neighbors secured state grants and built defense programs:

How Laguna compares with other California coastal cities on sea-level-rise planning.

Diverted Funds & The Incumbents’ Record

In March 2023 the County handed the City about 1.2 miles of South Laguna coastline, including Aliso, Table Rock, Thousand Steps and West Street beaches, along with their parking lots, beach accesses and the cost of maintaining and repairing them. The County also paid the City a one-time $22 million, which staff said would cover the added cost of running those beaches for up to 20 years. The Council, including me, based its decision on that forecast.

It was a sloppy forecast. The City’s proposed 2026–27 budget puts what’s left, the South Laguna Fund, at about $12 million. That’s roughly $10 million gone in three and a half years of a planned twenty, and I could find no public breakdown of what it paid for. Residents should be told.

Instead, the City Council moved millions elsewhere: the Forest Avenue Promenade expanded from $2.8 million to $7.2 million by taking $4.4 million from other capital projects; in January 2026, the Council voted 5-0 to loan $8 million from the vehicle replacement fund to artist housing in Laguna Canyon; and in March 2023, Councilmember Sue Kempf moved and Alex Rounaghi seconded a “Bluff Overlay” ordinance, with Mark Orgill’s vote, that would have allowed homes closer to cliff edges. It was shelved after public outcry, but never formally withdrawn.

Three Questions for Council Candidates Before You Vote:

1. When will the City formally initiate the SB 272 coastal plan required by state law?

2. Why hasn’t Laguna applied for the state adaptation grants that our neighbors received?

3. Why did Promenade expansions and housing loans take priority over our collapsing coastline?

An emergency declaration is not a strategy, and a $426,000 report on a shelf will not stop storm surge. Laguna was warned in 2016, 2024, and 2025. With a powerful El Niño approaching, voters on November 3 must decide who should be entrusted with the protection of our coast. Hint, it’s not the current council.

George Weiss served on the Laguna Beach City Council from 2020 to 2024 and sponsored the City’s Climate Action and Adaptation Plan. He is a member of NimbleGov PAC (Measure E) and has endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas, and Laura Parisi.

Sources

• ^{City of Laguna Beach, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment (PlaceWorks, April 2024) and Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Feb. 25, 2025).}

• ^{Laguna Beach General Plan Land Use Element (2012), sea-level-rise policies (ResilientCA summary).}

• ^{SB 272 (Laird, 2023), Sea level rise: planning and adaptation.}

• ^{California Coastal Commission, LCP Local Assistance Grant report, February 2026 meeting (Item W6d).}

• ^{CBS Los Angeles, “Orange County coastline faces possibility of significant erosion with El Niño looming” (Aug. 31, 2026); The Inertia, “Coastal Erosion Has Devastated Orange County’s Aliso Beach” (Aug. 31, 2026).}

• ^{KTLA, Fox LA, LAist and NBC LA coverage of the Sept. 10, 2026 coastal erosion emergency.}

• ^{Laguna Beach Indy, “Rockslide Damages Laguna Beach Cliff” (Oct. 2, 2026).}

• ^{Patch, “High Surf Floods Coast Highway In Laguna Beach” (Oct. 8, 2026); Voice of OC, “Orange County Beach Cities Flood Ahead of Weekend Storms” (Oct. 9, 2026).}

• ^{Voice of OC, “Coastal Erosion Partially Shuts Down PCH in Laguna Beach” (Oct. 13, 2026); KTLA, “Giant crack under Pacific Coast Highway in Orange County is a $4 million fix,” and Surfer, “$4 Million Emergency Plan Battles Crumbling California Cliff” (Oct. 20, 2026).}

• ^{Surfer, “Laguna Beach Surf & Sand Hotel Battered in Super El Niño Swell” (Oct. 18, 2026), for the City Manager’s quote.}

• ^{City Council agenda bills, Feb. 19 and Dec. 17, 2019 (Pearl Street Beach Access).}

• ^{CBS LA and Laguna Beach Indy, South Laguna beach transfer (2023).}

• ^{City of San Clemente, Coastal Resiliency Plan (Dec. 2021), via Dredgewire; City of Dana Point, Sea Level Rise page; Huntington Beach LCP grant application (LCP-19-11).}

• ^{City of Del Mar, Sea Level Rise Local Coastal Program Amendment page; City of Santa Cruz, West Cliff Drive Adaptation and Management Plan (adopted April 27, 2021); PublicCEO, “California Coastal Commission approves Pacifica’s Local Coastal Land Use Plan” (May 2025).}

• ^{Dana Point Times / San Clemente Times, “A Rising Tide: A Look at How Local Cities Are Addressing Sea Level Rise” (Oct. 3, 2019).}

• ^{California Coastal Commission, Orange County chapter of its statewide sea-level-rise vulnerability report (Dec. 31, 2016).}

• ^{Roger Butow, “Are Our Coastal Calamities ‘Predictable Emergencies?’” Laguna Beach Indy (Oct. 9, 2026), and email to the author.}

• ^{City Council minutes, Jan. 27, 2026, Item 15 (Artist Live Work Units; $8 million loan to the Laguna Beach Community Land Trust, approved 5-0).}

• ^{City of Laguna Beach, Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (Feb. 2025), Strategies 21 and 22 and Mayor’s statement; Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report (April 2024).}

• ^{Patch, “Beloved Aliso Beach Sees Big Flood Damage As A Result Of Savage Surf” (Oct. 14, 2026).}

• ^{Ocean Avenue and Beach Street Improvements Town Hall, Oct. 20, 2026 (video and transcript); City Council meeting recap, March 7, 2023 (Bluff Overlay ordinance).}

• ^{ABC7, “Seawall collapse at Laguna Beach oceanfront home raises concerns ahead of weekend swell” (Sept. 4, 2026).}

• ^{Patch, “Aliso Beach Finally Gets Sand In Laguna Beach After Severe Erosion” (Sept. 30, 2026).}

• ^{Stu News Laguna, Agate Street beach access reopening (July 2018).}

• ^{The Washington Post, “Fight intensifies over the fate of homes falling into the sea” (Sept. 18, 2026); ABC7, Dana Point red- and yellow-tagged homes (Sept. 9, 2026).}

• ^{City Council minutes, Oct. 13, 2026 (Disaster Contingency Fund appropriation; ratification of the Tropical Storm Rachel emergency).}

• ^{City of Laguna Beach, Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment Report (April 2024), p. 26 (Bluff Overlay District).}

Councilmember Sue Kempf’s recent guest letter promises to make “every dollar count.” It leaves out two facts voters need first. In 2024, while she was Mayor and the Council’s liaison to the Audit Committee, the City fired its outside auditor without Council approval and told the firms bidding to replace it that the last audit had found no material weaknesses. That was false, and Ms. Kempf voted to ratify the switch. And the $2.3 million capital-fund transfer she now says “needs to end” is the third such transfer in three years. She voted for all three budgets.

Much of what her letter lists is real, but she leaves a lot out of her record managing the city’s finances. Property taxes are strong, the 20% General Fund reserve is intact, the crime numbers are good, and Fire Station 4 is finally being built. But voters deciding whether to give Ms. Kempf a third term deserve to learn exactly what was left out.

Read Ms. Kempf’s letter before or after my article. It is posted below.

The audits

From 2018 through 2023, the City’s outside auditors reported significant deficiencies and then material weaknesses in its financial reporting and year-end closing. The FY2022 audit wasn’t finished until almost 11 months after the year ended, and the FY2023 audit was more than a year late.

Note: Ms. Kempf was elected in 2018.

In April 2024, the City’s then–Assistant City Manager ended the auditor’s contract a year early without asking the Council or the Audit Committee. Asked by bidders whether the FY2022-23 audit found any material weaknesses, the City answered that there were none. The June 30, 2023 audit report had found one, in internal control over financial reporting. Ms. Kempf defended the finance department and voted with the majority to approve the new firm. Nobody was held responsible.

The $2.29 million capital transfer in this year’s budget is the third in three years, and the capital fund isn’t the only one being tapped.

Ms. Kempf’s committee was formed after this pattern was set, not before.

The reserves

Ms. Kempf’s letter says the budget “did not require drawing from reserves.” That is true only of the 20% General Fund reserve. Unrestricted reserves fell from $59.4 million in 2022 to $46.4 million in 2025, a 22% drop, according to CPA Mary Locatelli’s reading of the audited statements. The City’s cash and investments fell by $18.4 million between July 2025 and July 2026, according to the Treasurer’s reports.

Ms. Kempf cites “approximately $7 million” in the Disaster Contingency Fund as a strength. Her own memo says it is 7.3% of General Fund spending, against a 10% target. In a town that has just declared a coastal emergency, that shortfall belongs in the letter.

Sidelining the elected Treasurer

The letter lists “earning more on our investments” as one of five strategies and credits the Council’s decision “about two years ago” to move part of the portfolio to Meeder Investments. It leaves out how that decision has been used to sideline the official voters elected to manage the City’s money: City Treasurer Laura Parisi, a CPA who has held the job since 1999.

In July 2024, with Ms. Kempf as Mayor, staff proposed cutting the Treasurer’s hours and handing oversight of the outside manager to the Finance Director, whose department’s audits had drawn material-weakness findings. Ms. Parisi and her attorney said the plan conflicted with the state laws that define a city treasurer’s duties, and two CPAs warned it would put investing and recordkeeping in the same hands.

On July 9, 2024, the Council adopted a compromise instead: the City Manager, not the Finance Director, would oversee Meeder, Meeder would report to the Treasurer as well, and her compensation would rise 5%. It passed 3-2. Ms. Kempf and Councilmember Rounaghi voted no.

Ms. Kempf kept at it. On June 24, 2025, she moved to shift at least $25 million more of the portfolio to Meeder and to order a third-party review of how many hours the Treasurer’s elected position requires. It passed unanimously. Her July 2026 memo with Councilmember Rounaghi goes further: “Meeder should be investing all funds with the exception of those funds necessary for overnight liquidity.” That would leave the elected Treasurer almost nothing to invest. Ms. Parisi has said the Council and management “have made it increasingly difficult for me to do the job that you elected me to do.”

In fairness, I voted in April 2024 to outsource part of the portfolio, because the City’s returns had lagged the Treasury benchmark. But hiring an outside manager for some investments is one thing. Steadily stripping the elected Treasurer of her role, and reviewing whether her job needs its hours, is another. Voters never approved that.

Numbers that don’t match

The letter claims “approximately $1.5 million in budget savings, including the elimination of vacant positions.” The Kempf-Rounaghi memo the letter cites says “about a million dollars in service reductions” and a net cut of about seven positions and doesn’t say they were vacant. Those cuts came in an election year, and they won’t prevent future deficits.

What the letter saves for later

The letter promises a plan “without new taxes” and says the Council should make every dollar count “before asking for more.” That sounds like a plan for placing new taxes on the ballot in 2028. Ms. Kempf has had eight years in office. Only now, after three years of deficits, does she promise a plan.

Ms. Kempf’s letter also leave out that this June the Council studied raising the hotel tax, the sales tax, and the business license tax. At least two polls were conducted at city expense. On July 7, the Council voted unanimously, Ms. Kempf included, to set them aside and work toward a revenue measure in November 2028, two years after this election. There is a plan.

Ms. Kempf’s letter doesn’t mention who is watching the books now. In 2025 the Council created a new Audit Committee with just two members: Ms. Kempf and Councilmember Alex Rounaghi, the co-authors of her memo. It has no residents and no CPAs. That same year, according to Ms. Locatelli, a significant deficiency appeared again in the annual audit. The City has not explained it publicly.

Laguna does start from a position of strength, built on increasing property tax revenue. On November 3, voters should consider whether the people who presided over late audits, a fired auditor, and three years of fund transfers, and who now plan a tax measure for after the election, are the ones to fix the problems their letter leaves out.

George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member (2020–2024) and cast the only vote against the 2024 auditor switch. He is a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot, and has endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas, and Laura Parisi.

Sources: Council minutes and recaps; the Kempf-Rounaghi memo (July 2026); the City’s May 20, 2026 budget presentation; Indy columns by Mary Locatelli; John Moorlach in Stu News; Voice of OC; and the City Treasurer’s monthly reports.

Guest Letter, Published in Stu News, October 23.

Sue Kempf

Laguna Beach City Councilmember

Candidate, Laguna Beach City Council

Laguna Beach’s fiscal future: Making every dollar count before asking for more

For fiscal year 2026-27, the City Council adopted a balanced budget that did not require drawing from reserves. But balancing it included a $2.3 million transfer from the Capital Improvement Fund to the General Fund, partly to support operating expenses and reserves, and our own forecast shows that the underlying budget gap could widen if we do nothing.

We took a proactive approach. That’s why this year, the Council formed an Efficiency and Fiscal Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee, made up of Councilmember Alex Rounaghi and me. This past July, we presented the Council and City Manager with a detailed memo on the city’s fiscal challenges and opportunities, for this year and the decade ahead.

Let’s start with where we stand today. Laguna Beach has a strong fundamental fiscal base. We have a stable, predictable and steadily growing property tax base, with approximately $59 million in property tax revenue projected for fiscal year 2026-27, thanks in part to California’s property tax structure. We have a strong visitor economy that produces substantial annual revenue through sales taxes, hotel taxes and parking revenues. And the city carries relatively little debt.

We also have a General Fund reserve equal to 20% of our General Fund operating budget (about $19 million), consistent with the city’s reserve policy. And because we are a disaster-prone community, we hold another approximately $7 million in our Disaster Contingency Fund. These reserves, relatively low debt and a stable tax base provide an important foundation as cities throughout Orange County confront rising costs and difficult budget decisions.

Our spending also reflects our priorities. About half of the city’s General Fund budget goes to public safety. We have invested more than $30 million in wildfire protection since 2019, including maintaining 27 fuel modification zones. We have supported neighborhoods in costly undergrounding districts by contributing a portion of project costs to encourage participation. We are moving forward with the replacement of Fire Station 4 in South Laguna, the first new fire station facility in 55 years, and created our in-house ambulance service, which generates transport fee revenue to help offset operating costs. Laguna’s ISO Class 2 fire rating reflects a high level of fire protection capability.

According to the city’s analysis of 2024 California Department of Justice crime data, Laguna Beach ranked lowest among Orange County coastal cities in violent crime per capita and second lowest in property crime per capita. In partnership with Newport Beach, the Laguna Beach County Water District is developing a joint groundwater well in Fountain Valley that is expected to supply up to two-thirds of the district’s water, reducing our reliance on costly imported water once operational, currently anticipated by 2028.

Now let’s talk about headwinds. Pension costs are a statewide problem. In Laguna, our pension-related costs are projected to peak around fiscal year 2028-29 before gradually declining, although actual costs will depend on investment performance and other factors. Hotel remodels and vacancies can reduce our hotel tax revenue. Most important, we are relying on a $2.3 million transfer from our capital budget to support the General Fund. That reliance needs to end.

Wildfire mitigation will remain costly. We also want to upgrade many of our facilities per the Facilities Master Plan at a manageable pace. The Wastewater Master Plan (think sewers) continues to guide important infrastructure improvements. And our capital program has a backlog: about 70 older active and inactive projects, some dating to 2017, that require review and prioritization.

Here is our plan to work toward a structurally balanced budget without new taxes. This year we identified approximately $1.5 million in budget savings, including the elimination of vacant positions. We set a target of another $2.3 million in recurring savings or offsetting non-tax revenue, enough to end the capital transfer, with staff directed to report back to the Council as part of the mid-year budget review.

We are pursuing five strategies:

1. Modernizing the budget process: Start from outcomes instead of simply building on last year’s budget, with a proposed public dashboard of results and three to four performance audits a year that ask whether the money buys results. This is a big but necessary change for Laguna.

2. Using technology to improve efficiency: Explore data-driven technology tools to create efficiencies, provide better service and reduce expenses. This work is underway, including an AI pilot in Community Development.

3. Improving how we deliver capital projects: Develop one 20-year infrastructure plan that says what gets built, when and how it is paid for. Staff should be able to prioritize projects that are feasible, appropriately funded and aligned with the city’s long-term needs.

4. Earning more on our investments: About two years ago, the Council approved transitioning a portion of the city’s investment management to Meeder Investments. As older, lower-yield investments mature, we have opportunities to improve returns through reinvestment, consistent with the city’s safety-first investment policy and market conditions.

5. Finding revenue without raising taxes: Review city-owned property, audit hotel tax payments and pursue additional grants.

The city, much like a household budget, faces rising costs. Laguna starts from a position of strength, and the work in our memo is about keeping it that way as we enter our centennial.

Councilmember Rounaghi and I wrote it around one principle: Before we ever ask residents for more, every dollar we already spend should have to earn its place.

On August 13, 2024, the City Council was asked to approve a new outside auditor. The old one had not quit. Then–Assistant City Manager Gavin Curran, who also ran the City’s finance operations, had ended its contract a year early. He did not ask the Council or the Audit Committee. Councilmember Bob Whalen said it plainly from the dais: the contract “shouldn’t have been terminated unilaterally by staff.” “This wasn’t a great process,” he added. Bob’s understatement says it all. He didn’t take Gavin’s offense seriously, “It just wasn’t a great process.” If Gavin had been working for a private company, he would have been fired. Then he and three colleagues voted to approve the switch anyway. I was the only no vote.

That vote is a small window into a bigger problem. For most of the last decade, Laguna Beach’s books have drawn warnings from its own auditors. The people charged with oversight have mostly looked away. Now the City is balancing its budget by moving money from one fund to another, while its own forecast shows the gap growing. Three of the council members who presided over all of this are asking for your vote on November 3.

A Decade of Warning Signs

Residents began noticing recurring audit adjustments around 2016, according to Mary Locatelli, a former Ernst & Young partner and bank audit executive who has followed the City’s finances for years. From 2018 through 2023, the City’s outside auditors reported a series of significant deficiencies and then material weaknesses in its financial reporting and year-end closing. Those are the two most serious kinds of findings an auditor can make about a city’s internal controls.

The specific problems named over those years included reviews of deposit balances, a missing capital asset policy, opening balances that didn’t match the prior year, oversight of bank accounts, and year-end closing. Residents raised them in the Indy and at the podium. In 2020 the City answered with a published “fact check” defending its finance division.

The audits were also late. A city audit is normally finished within six months of the June 30 fiscal year-end, and no later than nine. Former State Senator and Orange County Treasurer John Moorlach, a CPA, noted that fieldwork on Laguna’s FY2022 audit was not completed until May 25, 2023, almost 11 months after the year closed. The auditor’s first finding was a material weakness: the City “does not have sufficient procedures in place to ensure a proper year-end closing is completed in a timely manner.” The FY2023 audit arrived more than a year late. Michele Monda reported that 2017 was the last year the City finished its audit on time.

The City’s explanation, repeated by then-Mayor Sue Kempf, was turnover in the finance department. That turnover was real, and Gavin Curren remains accoutable for that. In 2024 the City lost a finance director who had been there less than a year; the one before stayed less than two. By March 2025, a newly hired finance director was leaving too. But turnover is a management problem, and the same finance leadership was in place through nearly all of it.

How the Auditor Was Fired

Eide Bailly, a national CPA firm, audited the City’s FY2022 and FY2023 books. It was two years into a three-year contract the Council had awarded. In April 2024, Mr. Curran ended it and issued a request for proposals for a new auditor. He did not consult the Council or the Audit Committee. Eide Bailly was not invited to bid. The Audit Committee learned of the change on July 2, after bidding had already closed.

What the City told the bidding firms is the most troubling part. The written answers in the request for proposals said:

• Why change auditors? The City wrote that it “had concerns about the quality of services provided by the previous audit firm.” Mr. Curran later told the Council the problem was timing.

• Did the last audit find any problems? Asked whether the FY2022-23 audit identified “noncompliance, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses,” the City answered: “There were no instances of noncompliance, significant deficiencies or material weaknesses noted by auditors in connection with the FY 2022-23 Audit.”

That second answer was false. Eide Bailly’s report dated June 30, 2023 identified a deficiency in internal control over financial reporting, finding 2023-001, that it considered “a material weakness.” The department that the finding was about ran the process for choosing its replacement, and told the bidders there was nothing to find. As former OC Treasurer John Moorlach put it: “The paper trail is disturbing, and, to me, obfuscation is unacceptable.”

On August 13, 2024, the Council voted 4-1 to hire Lance, Soll & Lunghard. Councilmember Alex Rounaghi said the decision “should have gone to the Audit Committee,” and then voted for it. Mayor Kempf, the Council’s liaison to the Audit Committee, voted for it. Councilmember Mark Orgill voted for it. The new firm told staff it could not finish the FY2023-24 audit until March 2025, so it was no faster than the firm it replaced. Nobody was held responsible. The Council did approve up to $85,000 for the consulting firm Raftelis to review the finance department.

A Watchdog with Two Members

The Council created its first Audit Committee in 2018, in response to residents. It was never only an audit committee. It was combined first with Measure LL oversight and later with investment advice, and it never had a member with accounting or auditing expertise.

After the Raftelis report, the Council finally created a stand-alone Audit Committee on March 25, 2025. It has exactly two members, both sitting council members. The City lists them as Alex Rounaghi and Sue Kempf. There are no resident members, no CPAs, and no former auditors. As I reported in August, Laguna is an outlier among Southern California cities. Most comparable committees include members of the public with financial expertise, and some are entirely independent of the council.

The two councilmembers now overseeing the audits are the same two who voted to ratify the auditor’s firing. And in 2025, a significant deficiency appeared again in the annual audit, according to Mary Locatelli. That finding came after the auditor was replaced. The City has not explained it publicly.

Moving Money to Cover the Gap

While the oversight problems went unaddressed, the City’s finances tightened. The pattern of the last two years is consistent: when the General Fund comes up short, money is moved in from somewhere else.

The totals tell the same story. Unrestricted reserves fell from $59.4 million in 2022 to $46.4 million in 2025, a 22% drop, according to Locatelli’s reading of the audited statements. That 2025 figure includes the $4 million moved over from restricted reserves. The City’s cash and investments fell from $165.0 million in July 2025 to $146.6 million in July 2026, according to the Treasurer’s reports.

Laguna still ranks near the top of Orange County cities for reserves per resident. That is a cushion built by earlier councils. It is not a plan.

The Deficits Ahead

The adopted FY2026-27 budget shows $101.29 million in General Fund spending against $99.87 million in baseline revenue, a $1.42 million operating gap. The City’s own 10-year forecast shows structural pressure from FY2027-28 onward, reaching as much as $6 million a year early in the next decade.

The pressures are not mysterious:

• Pensions: The City’s annual CalPERS cash contribution rose 27.5% this year, to $9.1 million, and is projected to peak near $10.6 million in FY2029. While the City Manager has pointed out that extraordinary state investment returns (11.6% and 14.8%) and steady paydowns reduced the total accrued balance sheet shortfall (the unfunded actuarial liability) to an estimated $68–$70 million, that market windfall does not eliminate our near-term budgetary strain. Annual cash payments from the General Fund remain near record highs, and every new hire adds ongoing normal costs that market returns cannot erase.

• Staffing: Authorized full-time positions grew from 260 in FY2015-16 to 350 plus this year. Personnel costs roughly doubled, from $44.7 million to $87.6 million. This year’s budget cut a net of seven positions.

• Revenue: Sales and hotel taxes have softened while property taxes keep rising.

This year the Council floated three tax increases: a hotel tax from 12% to 14% (about $3 million a year), a sales tax increase from 7.75% to 8.75% (about $7.8 million a year), and a new business license tax (about $8.6 million a year). On July 7, it voted unanimously to drop all three for this year and aim for a measure in November 2028, after the election.

Who Is Accountable

City staff carry out policy, but the Council sets it and is supposed to check it. On each of the decisions described here, the three incumbents on the ballot had a vote, and in most cases, they cast it:

• Sue Kempf was Mayor and the Council’s Audit Committee liaison when the auditor was fired. She defended the finance department’s record, voted to ratify the switch, and now sits on the two-member Audit Committee.

• Alex Rounaghi said the firing should have gone to the Audit Committee, then voted to approve it. He sits on the two-member Audit Committee. He has proposed a fiscal sustainability plan with performance audits and about $2.3 million in recurring cuts, and that deserves credit. But he has voted for three budgets that relied on transfers from other funds.

• Mark Orgill voted to ratify the auditor switch and as Mayor presided over this year’s budget, which balances only by moving $2.29 million out of the capital fund.

All three voted for budgets and mid-year adjustments that moved money out of the capital and parking funds to cover shortfalls.

Laguna Beach doesn’t have a money problem yet. It has an accountability problem, and money problems follow those.

George Weiss

Disclosure: I served on the City Council from 2020 to 2024 and cast the only vote against the August 2024 auditor switch. I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot. I have endorsed Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas, and Laura Parisi; Ms. Parisi is the City Treasurer, whose monthly reports are cited here.

Sources: Council minutes and my published Council recaps; the Indy columns and letters of Mary Locatelli, Michele Monda, Robin Hall and Gene Felder; John Moorlach’s July 23, 2024 Stu News column; Voice of OC; the City’s Audit Committee page; City Manager Dave Kiff’s September 2026 Pension Update memo; the City Treasurer’s monthly reports; and Councilmember Rounaghi’s October 17, 2026 Substack memo.

In September 2024, Michèle Monda, a 21-year resident and treasurer of Laguna Beach Sister Cities, wrote a letter to the Laguna Beach Indy calling for term limits on our City Council and School Board. Her point was simple: when the same few people hold power year after year, the town starts working for them instead of for residents.

Mike Marriner Sr. answered her in the comments on September 8. “Term limits are not just about bringing in fresh ideas,” he wrote. “They are essential for preventing the concentration of power that we’ve seen in our community. When individuals hold onto leadership positions for too long, it creates an imbalance, and we risk falling into a leadership culture that leans toward authoritarianism.”

“When individuals hold onto leadership positions for too long … we risk falling into a leadership culture that leans toward authoritarianism.”

Two years later, voters finally get to decide. Measure E is on the November ballot. Here is why Monda and Marriner were right, and why it deserves your vote.

The tradition that kept power in check

For years, the Council rotated the mayor and mayor pro tem positions among its members. Rotation meant the person running meetings and setting agendas changed each year, so no faction could control the Council’s business for long. The School Board went further and required rotation in its bylaws.

Then both bodies abandoned it. The School Board set its own bylaw aside, and the Council followed. As Monda documented, Bob Whalen, then nearing twelve years on the Council, had served as mayor five times and mayor pro tem twice, presiding for seven of those twelve years.

He and Sue Kempf passed the gavel back and forth between them. On the School Board, President Jan Vickers held the presidency six times in ten years and voted first to ignore the rotation bylaw and then to change it.

Marriner named what this produces: “the refusal to rotate leadership roles, the lack of accountability, and decisions that benefit special interests over the will of the residents.” When the same people hold the gavel, he warned, “decisions are made behind closed doors,” transparency is lost, and “those in control are more likely to disregard community input.”

What long tenure has cost residents

Concentrated power would matter less if it delivered. Monda’s list suggests it has not:

• A proposed Presbyterian Church parking structure that would have cost the City about $12 million to build, with the church ending up owning it, and collecting its income, free and clear.

• Plans to take over and underground Laguna Canyon Road, at an estimated $150 million plus ongoing liability and maintenance costs, with no source of money named. (The city has already spent over $4 million on the project with no lines being undergrounded.)

• A massive parking structure at City Hall, at an unknown cost, while the Council says it wants to manage visitor impacts.

• Alarming growth in City staff, from 260 positions in 2015 to 359 today, and in spending, even as the population has declined.

Taken together they show what happens when no one at the dais has to answer to new colleagues with fresh eyes. As Marriner put it, the question stops being what is best for “the students, families, and citizens of Laguna Beach” and becomes “serving the agendas of a select few who fund these campaigns or benefit from these decisions.”

Not one sitting Council member supports term limits for Laguna.

What is at stake

Marriner warned that if we do not act, “we are handing down a deeply troubling legacy to the next generation,” one in which “leadership is about consolidating power rather than serving the public.” Our young people are watching. So are the developers and interest groups who fund their campaigns.

Monda ended her letter with five words that still apply: “It’s time for new blood.”

Vote yes on Measure E, and support candidates who support term limits and work for the people, not for those with the biggest checkbook.

Thanks for reading my Substack articles,

George

Quotes are from Michèle Monda’s letter in the Laguna Beach Indy (September 2024) and Mike Marriner Sr.’s reader comment of September 8, 2024 (lagunabeachindy.com/opinion-concerning-city-council-8/).

With ballots having arrived across Laguna Beach, residents are weighing who to trust with the City’s future. I believe voters deserve a clear, unvarnished look at the fiscal decisions made in the adopted FY 2026–27 budget—and what they mean for our infrastructure.

The Budget Gap: How the Balance Was Struck

Last winter, City finance staff projected that Laguna Beach faced an operating shortfall of roughly $500,000. By May, public communications shifted, suggesting the deficit had been erased.

The mechanism behind that turnaround was not unexpected new revenue, but an accounting transfer. The adopted FY 2026–27 budget reflects $101.29 million in General Fund expenditures against $99.87 million in baseline revenues—a $1.42 million operating gap.

To achieve a balanced bottom line, the Council approved a $2.29 million transfer from the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) fund into the General Fund, alongside another $3.6 million transfer to stabilize an internal Insurance and Benefits fund that opened the year $2.27 million in the red. In total, roughly $7.19 million in reserves flowed out of capital funds this fiscal cycle.

Transferring capital reserves to cover general operations is not new:

• FY 2024–25: $2.86 million transferred

• FY 2025–26: $1.70 million transferred

• FY 2026–27: $2.29 million transferred

While inter-fund transfers are permissible municipal accounting tools, using them to cover recurring operational shortfalls creates real policy consequences. Every dollar moved from the CIP is a dollar delayed or redirected away from storm drain retrofits, fire station modernization, park upgrades, and coastal accessway maintenance. Treating capital reserves as an ongoing operational buffer postpones structural discipline.

Three years running, the Council has balanced the budget with money meant for fire stations, City Hall and parks.

Long-Term Commitments and Cash Realities

The City’s own 10-year forecast indicates that structural operating pressures will persist from FY 2027–28 onward, potentially reaching $6 million annually early in the next decade.

Much of this pressure is driven by nondiscretionary obligations:

• CalPERS Pension Contributions: Mandatory annual contributions climbed 27.5% to $9.1 million this fiscal year and are forecast to peak near $9.6 million to $10.5 million.

• Treasury Balances: City Treasurer reports show total cash and portfolio balances declining from $165 million to $146.6 million over the past year. While a significant portion of this draw reflects scheduled payments for previously contracted capital projects, sustained annual draws underscore that our reserve cushion cannot substitute for operational restraint indefinitely.

Staff growth is the one cost the Council fully controls. The City authorized 260 full-time positions in 2015-16; this year’s budget authorizes 359, 38% more, while Laguna’s population fell. Personnel costs, pay plus benefits and pension payments, have roughly doubled, from $44.7 million to $87.6 million, and now account for nearly half of all City spending. This year’s budget trimmed a net of seven positions, most of them already vacant or limited-term. And every added position carries its own pension cost, year after year.

Revenue Measures vs. Expenditure Control

Rather than prioritizing structural expenditure reductions—such as curbing administrative headcount growth, scaling back outside consulting contracts, and reducing operational overhead—the Council commissioned a public survey through Probolsky Research to test the electorate’s appetite for new taxes:

• Sales Tax: Polled at 49% in favor to 47% opposed—well within the survey’s ±5% margin of error, with 68% of opponents stating they were “definitely opposed.”

• Business License Tax: Polled with 48% outright opposition (61% “definitely no”).

• Hotel Bed Tax (TOT): Received 75% support, but representatives from the local hospitality sector cautioned that increasing Laguna’s rate toward 14 or 16% risks putting our local businesses at a regional disadvantage.

• Resident Satisfaction: The survey revealed that resident ratings of municipal performance fell from 50% to 39% in a single year, with nearly one in three respondents expressing concern over administrative efficiency.

On July 7, the Council voted unanimously to pause placing tax proposals on the November ballot, opting instead to continue exploring a revenue measure for the November 2028 cycle. Delaying the vote does not solve the underlying math; it merely postpones the conversation.

The Choice Before Voters

Rather than live within an ample budget, the Council has spent the last few years balancing it with fund transfers. Before approving new taxes in 2028, the City should demonstrate that it has exhausted every reasonable operational efficiency.

Delaying the vote does not solve the underlying math; it merely postpones the conversation.

1. Conduct an independent, line-item audit of non-essential third-party contracts.

2. Reduce reliance on outside consultants

3. Establish a clear moratorium on transferring capital infrastructure funds to subsidize ongoing operating payroll and benefits.

4. Align long-term staffing growth strictly with sustainable, recurring General Fund revenue.

5. Look at ousourcing and moving departments like Water Quality to other more capable agencies.

6. Create a moratorium on additional hiring.

For three years, Council incumbents Mark Orgill, Sue Kempf, and Alex Rounaghi voted to adopt the current budget and rely on capital reserve transfers. As voters review their ballots, the critical policy question is straightforward: Should Laguna Beach balance its ongoing operations by tapping funds set aside for vital public infrastructure, or should City Hall adjust its operational spending to live within its means?

On November 3, I am casting my vote for fiscal accountability with Joy Berry, Laura Parisi, and Ashley Cintas, and voting Yes on Measure E.

Sincerely,

George Weiss

Former Member, Laguna Beach City Council and longtime political activist.

Voters can view official candidate statements, ballot measure arguments, and the full text of municipal resolutions via the City of Laguna Beach Election Portal and the Orange County Registrar of Voters.

Disclosure: I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, which placed Measure E on the ballot.

^Sources:

^{City of Laguna Beach, Adopted Budget FY 2026-27: General Fund summary and transfers in from the Capital Improvement Fund (FY 2024-25 through FY 2026-27); Capital Improvement Fund balance; Insurance and Benefits Fund; Long-Range Fiscal Forecast; Pensions; Authorized Full-Time Positions; Salaries and Benefits.}

^{City of Laguna Beach, Adopted Budget FY 2015-16: History of Authorized Positions; All Funds Summary.}

^{City Council Study Session, June 9, 2026, Item 5 (2026 Survey Results and Potential Revenue Ballot Measures); Probolsky Research survey.}

^{City Council meeting, July 7, 2026; Voice of OC, “Laguna Beach Scraps Tax Increase Proposals, For Now,” July 13, 2026.}

^{City Treasurer’s monthly reports, July 2025 and July 2026.}

^{City Manager Dave Kiff, “About Pensions at the City of Laguna Beach (September 2026 Update).”}

^{Earlier posts on this Substack: “From Red to Black — Just in Time” (June 13, 2026) and “How City Hall Outgrew Laguna.”}

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.

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, among them Joe Hanauer, Patrick Quilter, Christopher Quilter and Cody Engle. 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 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 as always, I welcome your thoughts and any corrections.

George Weiss

Disclosure: I am a member of NimbleGov PAC, the committee that placed Measure E on the ballot, and I have endorsed three City Council candidates in this election, Joy Berry, Ashley Cintas, and Laura Parisi.

Sources: FPPC Form 460s for City Council candidates and committees through Oct. 19, 2026; Citizens for Laguna’s Future Form 460 through Sept. 19, 2026; Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee (FPPC ID 1497439) Form 497, Oct. 1, 2026; Village Laguna forum, Aug. 31, 2026.

I published a prior version of this article a couple of months ago. Now I have updated it for you.

In my voter guide, I called the Promenade “the pattern in one project.” This revised post lays out that record in full, drawn from City staff reports, the City’s own budget and, most of all, what the incumbents themselves said at this fall’s candidate forums.

Thanks, George

From $2.8 Million to $7.8 Million

Residents were told the Promenade on Forest would cost about $2.8 million. When the Council approved the permanent design in June 2025, the cost was reported at about $4 million. On January 13, 2026, the Council unanimously awarded a construction contract of just over $5.5 million to the low bidder and approved a total budget of about $7.2 million. To pay for it, the Council moved $4.4 million out of other capital projects, which now have to wait.

The City’s current budget lists the project at $7.8 million.

Two Council Members Shaped It

The design was led by a two-member ad hoc committee: Mayor Mark Orgill and Councilmember Sue Kempf. Rather than hold a design competition, they chose SWA Group under an existing on-call contract. Alex Rounaghi, then Mayor, credited the concept to the two of them in February 2025. The Council later approved roughly $600,000 in design contracts with SWA and Psomas, which produced the final plans.

Alex Rounaghi was not on that committee, but he voted for the Promenade at every stage over the last four years and was one of its strongest supporters.

“Where are you guys getting your facts?” — Sue Kempf, on the Promenade budget

At the GOP forum on September 23, Orgill was asked who oversaw SWA and approved the final design, which residents say looks different from what they were shown. He answered, “That was the Planning Commission,” and on the design changes, “I’m not familiar with that.” He co-led the committee that hired SWA.

The $10,000 Chair

The winning bid included about $180,000 for Adirondack chairs, roughly $10,000 a chair. The City later explained on Instagram that contractors spread labor, bonding, insurance and overhead across more than 100 bid items, so a single line item doesn’t show what an item really costs. That may be so, but it is also the problem: no council member asked about it before voting.

At the September 23 candidate forum, the incumbents were asked what due diligence they did:

• Rounaghi said the Council “should have been more diligent in asking about the line-by-line items,” and that he didn’t remember when the contract was approved. It was January 13, and the vote was unanimous.

• Orgill said state rules gave the Council “very little leeway” to question line items. Asked whether the City could reject all bids and ask contractors to sharpen their pencils, he answered, “Yes.” By his own account, he has held a contractor’s license for 36 years.

• Kempf said, “We should know intuitively that an Adirondack chair doesn’t cost $10,000,” but did not say whether she asked about it before voting.

“Under Budget”?

Kempf now says the project is $500,000 under budget. Her math: a $5.5 million contract plus $1.2 million in contingency equals $6.7 million, and spending is at $6.2 million. But that counts only the construction contract. By her own numbers, the City has already spent about $700,000 more than the contract price, and her figure leaves out roughly $600,000 in design contracts, a $340,950 construction-management contract and an $85,000 water feature. A project can come in “under budget” when the budget was raised by $4.4 million to cover it.

The Trees and the Fountain

Seven trees came down during grading. Then, in April 2026, after a eucalyptus failed during construction, the City held an emergency meeting and removed nine more overnight. Sixteen trees came down in all, against five in the original plan. Kempf told the Village Laguna forum, “There’s no way that you would ever know that we’d have problems with the trees unless you dug underneath there.” Rounaghi defended the removals, citing two arborist reports on safety: “I wouldn’t be able to sleep at night if I made a political decision about keeping a tree” that posed a threat. But the approved design had assumed ten of those trees would remain, so the finished Promenade is not the design residents were shown.

A project can come in “under budget” when the budget was raised by $4.4 million to cover it.

The centerpiece fountain, an $85,000 custom “Kelp Forest” sculpture by a non-Laguna artist, in a town known for its artists, never went back to the Arts Commission. The Commission reviewed only an early concept, in September 2025, then declined to approve it.

873 Residents Asked for an Alternative

873 residents signed a petition asking the Council to consider an alternative plan. The same night it approved the $7.2 million budget, the Council turned them down.

Asked at the Village Laguna forum what she would have done differently, Kempf said: “I don’t know what else we could have done better because we, we talked to many, many people. We had many, many meetings.” Meetings are not the same as listening. 873 residents asked for something different, and the answer was no.

The Pattern

The Promenade is how this Council works: two members shape a project out of public view, the price climbs after residents stop watching, money promised to other projects is moved to cover it, and residents who object are turned away. All three incumbents running for re-election voted for it.

Orgill, for his part, is confident residents will come around. Reminded at the Advocates forum that he had once said, “Wait till it’s built. Everyone will love it,” he answered: “I do think over time people will come to like it and enjoy it… Look at Main Beach. Look at the Eiffel Tower.” He added that “it is built for the part of the community that is out.” Every resident is paying for it: $7.8 million.

The challengers answered the same question differently. Joy Berry, who entitled 40 hotels for Marriott, said any contractor prices projects line by line and the City should have done the same. Laura Parisi would write line-item detail into the City’s request for proposals before a bid comes in. Ashley Cintas said that if she sees a $10,000 chair, she will ask the right questions.

On November 3, I’m voting for Joy Berry, Laura Parisi and Ashley Cintas, and yes on Measure E.

If you agree or disagree, I would like to hear from you.

Sincerely,
George

George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member (2020-2024) and a long-time civic advocate.

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.

Sources:

City Council meeting, Jan. 13, 2026: Promenade construction contract award and capital budget transfer (staff presentation by City Engineer Tom Perez).

City of Laguna Beach, Adopted Budget FY 2026-27, Capital Improvement Program: Forest Promenade Permanent Conversion.

Candidate forums (transcripts): Village Laguna, Aug. 31, 2026; Greater Laguna Beach GOP, Sept. 23, 2026; Advocates for Laguna Residents, 2026.

City Manager Dave Kiff, update of July 30, 2026 (Promenade fountain and Arts Commission review).

Earlier posts on this Substack: “My Voter Guide for City Council,” “REVISED: Hot Topics (Just the Promenade),” and “Is Laguna Beach’s Record of Tree Removals a 2026 Election Issue?”

Thanks, George

On October 20, 2026, the City of Laguna Beach Public Works Department hosted a Town Hall to present the 60% design plans for the Ocean Avenue and Beach Street Improvements project and gather community input. Staff (Project Manager Alpha Santos, with Public Works managers Tom and Pierre) walked through proposed sidewalk panel replacement, tree well expansions, curb extensions (“bump-outs”) and a wider Beach Street sidewalk.

Over two hours, residents, business owners and Zoom callers raised concerns in five main areas:

• Tree Health & Preservation: the arborist finding that only 20 of 62 trees in the project area are in “normal” condition, the effect of removing concrete over shallow roots, and fear of a repeat of the Forest Avenue tree losses.

• Lane Widths & Bump-outs: residents read the plans as narrowing Beach Street lanes to about 9 feet and worried about fire trucks, delivery trucks and trolleys. Staff said the 9 feet is the sidewalk widening and that lane widths are “maintained” by restriping.

• Fiscal Priorities: whether a $1.5 million streetscape project makes sense during deficit spending, with several speakers urging money go to coastal resiliency instead.

• Business Consultation: merchants and residents said no one from the City had talked to Ocean Avenue business owners before the plans were drawn.

• Safety vs. Aesthetics: whether the work is needed for ADA compliance and trip-and-fall liability, or is mainly a cosmetic redesign.

Below is a breakdown of the questions and comments, with what staff actually said in response.

Detailed Q&A and Community Feedback (by Speaker & Session)

1. Opening Questions & Early Q&A

2. Dave Casale — Brick Continuity & Business Engagement

Comment on Brick Continuity

• Public Comment: Asked that brick be continued along Ocean Avenue instead of concrete panels, to tie it to the Promenade and give the town a consistent look. [30:08]

• Staff Response: Full sidewalk replacement would use 2x2 concrete panels with brick banding at least every 30 feet, plus brick crosswalks and corners. Staff said this provides a consistent look along the corridor. [31:36]

Comment on Business Owner Outreach

• Public Comment: Said he walked into six Ocean Avenue businesses that day and all six said no one had talked to them about the plans. [34:09]

• Staff Response: “We received the input.” Staff said Alpha was taking notes and the comments would be put together for the Planning Commission. Staff did not commit to direct consultation with business owners. [34:01]

3. In-Person Resident (Ann) — Project Need, Traffic & Trees

4. In-Person Resident (Liza) — Ficus Roots, Bike Safety & Tree Grates

• Resident Question: Asked whether the raised Beach Street sidewalk at the ficus would be rebuilt with a wood deck, metal grate or similar; raised bike safety with no shoulder; said the Whole Foods corner bump-out is unnecessary; asked where the tree grates would go. [43:04]

• Staff Response: Grates are only for smaller trees; large trees like the ficus on Beach get an expanded well with mulch, not a grate. Tom added that grates protect roots from foot traffic and their rings can be cut as trees grow. [46:20; 50:31]

5. In-Person Resident — Concrete Mix

• Resident Question: Asked whether the City was adding hazardous waste (“scrapings from the big towers when they do the burns”) to its concrete. [48:10]

• Staff Response: “Not to our knowledge… I’m not sure where that information is coming from.” [48:23]

6. Edward Bayuk — Seal Beach Model & Tree Survival

• Public Comment: Urged staff to visit Main Street in Seal Beach, where tree planters are about three times larger and flush with the sidewalk. “I recommend not to use tree grates. Save the money.” Warned that digging up the sidewalks will cost the City “those 40 trees just like Forest Avenue.” [56:32–58:49]

• Staff Response: None. The moderator moved to the next speaker.

7. Jerome — Distrust, Fiscal Priorities & Emergency Access

• Public Comment & Criticisms: [59:08–1:06:58]

  • “After what we saw on Forest Avenue… I have zero trust in where we’re going and what we’re doing.”

  • Said the plans show Beach Street lanes of about 9 feet: “You try getting a fire truck down that.”

  • Noted the City is “in a third year of deficit spending.”

  • Said Forest Avenue trees went unbraced for a month and asked whether every tree will be braced on this project.

  • Asked why the public is not allowed to vote on the Promenade, this project or the Downtown Action Plan.

  • Called the project “a renaming of the Downtown Action Plan… piecemealing it… street by street just so we don’t cause too big a ruckus.”

• Staff Response: No direct response to Jerome. Elsewhere in the meeting staff said they work under the Council’s adopted CIP, and that a construction contract must go back to the City Council before anything is built. [36:33; 1:32:22]

8. In-Person Residents — Accident Data, Aesthetics & Merchant Notice

9. Zoom Caller (Aaron Peluso) — Tree Risk, Traffic & Priorities

• Public Comment: [1:17:33–1:22:27]

  • Tree risk: Once sidewalks are opened, “you might lose half the trees or we might lose all the trees or you might lose no trees. We don’t really know.”

  • ADA: Said ADA compliance could be done far more simply without bump-outs and large sidewalk work; the proposal is largely aesthetic.

  • Traffic: Staff’s slide said no traffic impact, yet the City’s own messaging called it traffic calming; asked for “a full analysis of what this does during peak traffic times,” since this is a feeder to Laguna Canyon Road, an emergency route.

  • Priorities: With significant coastal-resiliency costs, “this seems to be rather optional.”

• Staff Response: No immediate response. Later, Tom said, “There may be impacts to vehicles, but it’s really focused on, you know, improving the safety for pedestrians.” [1:44:54] Peluso replied that this contradicts the “no traffic impact” bullet and that numbers will be needed before the Planning Commission. [1:53:23]

10. Zoom Q&A (Armando) & Zoom Caller (Greg Viviani)

Council Authorization & Project Scope

• Resident Inquiries:

  • Armando: When did the City Council approve the Ocean Avenue plan, and was the RFP published? [1:22:33]

  • Greg Viviani: Seconded Peluso and urged that the project “be completely tabled” to “focus on coastal resiliency, sand replenishment and coastal armoring,” and on roads, infrastructure and Aliso Beach parking. [1:24:32]

• Staff Response (to Armando): The project has not yet gone to the Council for approval. The Council has awarded the engineering design contract to Lochner and, in November 2025, directed staff to keep Ocean Avenue two-way. [1:22:50–1:24:13]

11. In-Person Resident (68-year resident) — Trip-and-Fall Data, Lanes & Presentation

• Resident Inquiries: [1:25:40–1:30:09]

  • Asked what data the City has on people tripping on brick versus sidewalks.

  • “The width of the lane, 9 ft’s not going to cut it” — said truck mirrors will be broken off.

  • Said the project is low priority compared with Aliso Beach and the aging sewer system.

  • Asked staff to use real photos and City drone images at the next meeting.

• Staff Response (Tom, later in the meeting): The City just contracted to spend $200,000 this year on sidewalk grinding citywide; once concrete has been ground down it needs full replacement, and ADA requires a 2% cross-slope. He did not have trip-and-fall numbers on hand. [1:40:21–1:42:05]

12. In-Person Resident — Procurement, Town Halls & Council Oversight

• Resident Question: Did SWA’s contract go out to bid? What has it cost? Are town halls required by law? Why go forward with a project the public doesn’t want? Does staff meet with Council members? [1:30:20–1:33:55]

• Staff Response: SWA was hired from the City’s on-call consultant list (no separate bid). Staff did not have the cost — “we would have to look back” — and asked residents to email for it. Town halls are not required by law. Staff was tasked by the Council with this project, will report the tone of the meeting to the Planning Commission, and a construction contract still needs Council approval. Staff generally does not meet individually with Council members, though ad hoc committees exist on some projects.

13. In-Person Residents (Nick and others) — Cost, Priorities & Public Access

14. In-Person Resident — Parcel Behind the Frontier Building

• Resident Question: Asked whether the parcel behind the Frontier building near Whole Foods, now used for containers, is City land that could be put to better use. [1:55:05]

• Staff Response: None; staff moved to the last questions.

15. In-Person Resident — “Do We Have to Do Something?”

• Resident Question: Said that from what he heard, the trees might have a better survival rate if the City did nothing, and asked: “Do we have to do something?” [1:56:33]

• Staff Response (Tom): “Certainly we do have to do something” — trip hazards, sidewalk panels and uneven bricks need replacing — but what that is is still being worked out, and the plan “will be changed a little bit before it’s presented to the Planning Commission.” “100% we’re working towards keeping those trees there and keeping them healthy.” [1:56:57–1:58:14]

16. Dave Casale — Request for Written Answers

• Public Request: Asked for a written response to every question — “here’s the question, here’s what we’re going to do about it, and here’s why” — and how long it would take. [1:58:26]

• Staff Response (Tom): Staff will “put together a matrix with the questions that have been asked to the best that we can and provide those answers,” and post it on the project web page, “hopefully next week, maybe end of next week.” [1:59:16]

Sourcing: compiled from the City of Laguna Beach recording of the October 20, 2026 Ocean Avenue & Beach Street Town Hall. Bracketed numbers are times in the recording. Staff responses are quoted or closely paraphrased from what was said at the meeting; where staff did not respond, that is noted. Names are as heard on the

Dear Reades,

On Tuesday evening, October 20, 2026, the City Council Chambers hosted a packed Town Hall workshop that quickly transformed into a microcosm of Laguna’s ongoing battle between municipal modernization and historic preservation.

Please note that the original Downtown Action Plan approved in 2020 targeted 118 trees for removal. By piecmeling the entire project the Council thinks that it would be easier for residents to swallow.

At stake is the Ocean Avenue and Beach Street Improvements project, funded by a $1.5 million allocation from the FY 2025/26 Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

Led by Project Manager Alpha Santos alongside Public Works leadership, staff presented the 60% design engineering plans. The project—tabled from its original September Planning Commission date to allow for broader public outreach—proposes intersection redesigns at Forest and Beach, AB413-compliant daylighting bumpouts, two-way circulation on Lower Ocean, expanded tree wells, and sidewalk replacements. But behind the polished slides lay an audience carrying heavy scar tissue from past city endeavors, notably the Forest Avenue Promenade.

“You built the Promenade and cut down our shade under the promise of enhancement. Why should we trust that Ocean Avenue won’t face the exact same fate?”

The Canopy Crisis: 20 Out of 62

The night’s most volatile flashpoint emerged when public discussions turned to urban forestry. Arborist assessments from Dudek revealed a startling statistic: of the 62 ficus trees framing Ocean Avenue, only 20 are currently classed in “normal” or healthy condition. For a community fiercely protective of its shady, mature streetscapes, this revelation triggered immediate alarms.

Staff emphasized that tree retention remains a primary design goal, proposing tree grates for young saplings and expanded mulch wells for mature trees. Yet, residents voiced skepticism over tree grates—arguing they restrict trunk growth and trap debris—and cited past city projects where roots were severed during concrete grinding, leaving trees vulnerable to collapse.

Fire Lanes, Deficits, and Disconnected Outreach

Beyond forestry, the engineering details raised intense operational concerns. The plan to narrow Beach Street lanes to 9 feet to accommodate expanded pedestrian sidewalks drew fierce criticism from residents and local business owners. Questions centered on how emergency response vehicles, fire engines, and oversized delivery trucks would safely navigate the corridor without creating gridlock.

Financially, residents pointed to broader economic realities, asking why the city is advancing a $1.5M visual makeover during a period of municipal deficit spending—especially when critical coastal infrastructure, such as Aliso Beach sand replenishment and sea wall protection, urgently demands capital.

Jerome Pudwill (Local Resident)

“Who authorized this project? Why are we forcing 9-foot lane widths on Beach Street that block fire trucks, while spending money on a non-speeding street during a city deficit?”

Staff Response: Public Works acts under explicit direction from the City Council via the approved CIP budget. Final engineering details and turning movement analyses remain under active refinement.

Aaron Paluso (Zoom Attendee)

“There is a direct contradiction between staff claiming ‘no traffic impacts’ and verbally admitting turning movements will be restricted. Where is the rigorous emergency access study?”

Staff Response: Traffic patterns will functionally match current movements. Staff acknowledged the need for tighter data alignment before the 90% engineering milestone.

Edward Buyak (Longtime Resident)

“Look at Main Street in Seal Beach: large, flush tree planters work without expensive, tree-choking metal grates. Why not keep it simple and preserve root integrity?”

Staff Response: Staff appreciated the common-sense precedent and noted that flush, expanded mulch wells will be used for mature trees rather than metal grates.

The Business Consultation Disconnect

A recurring complaint throughout the three-hour workshop was the lack of direct engagement with storefront merchants along Ocean Avenue and Beach Street. Multiple business owners stated on the record that no city official or consultant had visited their shops to discuss construction impacts, delivery access, or curb modifications.

Key Community Demands & The Path to January

As the meeting stretched into late Q&A, resident feedback coalesced around five clear mandates for Public Works and the Planning Commission before any formal design review hearing takes place in January 2027.

Summary of Resident Mandates

• Formal Question & Answer Matrix: A written response addressing every town hall inquiry, promised by staff for web publication.

• Seal Beach Tree Model: Abandon metal tree grates in favor of enlarged, flush, unpaved tree wells that maximize root hydration.

• Emergency Access Verification: Independent turning radius studies proving 9-foot lanes won’t hinder Laguna Beach Fire Department trucks.

• Direct Merchant Outreach: One-on-one storefront consultations with affected business owners prior to 90% design finalization.

• Fiscal Realignment: Full transparency on SWA consultant fees and clear justification of CIP spending versus coastal resiliency priorities.

Editorial Outlook: A Test of Civic Governance

The October 20 Town Hall demonstrated that streetscaping in Laguna Beach is never just about bricks and mortar—it is a test of civic trust. While Public Works staff demonstrated patience and a willingness to record public feedback, the underlying friction reflects a citizenry fatigued by top-down design and anxious about losing the town’s unique village character.

If staff can deliver on its promise to publish a complete Q&A matrix, conduct genuine merchant outreach, and adjust tree preservation plans to reflect common-sense community proposals, the January 2027 Planning Commission hearing could mark a turning point. If not, Ocean Avenue may become the next major battleground in Laguna’s ongoing struggle over whether the city council listens to residents and businesses.

If you want to stop this project or at a minimum see resident’s concerns addressed don’t vote for the incumbent. They have already decided what they want.

George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member and a long-time civic advocate. Disclosure: I served on the Council from 2020 to 2024, alongside all three incumbents. 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.

I first wrote this article about a year ago, using the City’s proposed budget for 2025-26. With the election two weeks away, I have updated it with the adopted FY 2026-27 budget and checked every figure I could against the City’s own budget documents. Where the newer numbers change the picture, I say so.

Thanks, George

Staff Levels at the City of Laguna Beach Rise at Alarming Rates

In ten short years the City of Laguna Beach has dramatically increased the size of its staff. The 2015-16 budget authorized 260 full-time positions. Last year’s budget authorized 366. This year’s adopted budget trims that to 359, still 38% more than a decade ago, while Laguna’s population fell from about 23,250 to about 22,700.

Some of the additional hires make sense and were unavoidable, like the 13 positions that staff the City’s ambulance service. But even setting those aside, the City has added about 85 full-time positions since 2015, every one of them approved at the discretion of the City Council. We are spending too much on staff, and it takes away money we could spend on projects that serve residents.

This growth reflects a change in city management’s priorities, sanctioned by the City Council. Instead of putting resources into a high level of customer service for residents, money has gone into building up departments. In 2015, Human Resources had three and a half positions, headed by a Personnel Services Manager. By 2024 it was led by a Director. In 2022, under former City Manager Shohreh Dupuis, the HR Manager became a Director, the Finance Director added the title of Assistant City Manager, and other positions were retitled and promoted to higher salaries.

Update: To its credit, but aided by financial pressure this year’s budget folds Human Resources and Finance into a single Administrative Services Department and eliminates the separate Director of Human Resources and Director of Finance titles. That is a step in the right direction.

Laguna Beach is a small city of about 22,300 (as of July 2025) residents, yet its staffing looks like that of a much larger city. Instead of excellent service, residents too often get mediocre service, a judgment corroborated by the many stories I have heard from residents who were treated shabbily.

Note: Laguna Beach ranks 16th of 469 California cities in city workers per resident: one for every 41 residents, against a state average of one for every 113. Newport Beach has one for every 76. Like Laguna NB is a full service city.

Source: Teri Sforza, Orange County Register, July 2025, analysis of 2024 payroll data reported to the California State Controller.

Payroll Grew Faster Than the Town

The tables below compare the Adopted 2015-16 budget with the Proposed 2025-26 budget. The second table adjusts out the ambulance service’s employees and their wages.

Note: “Salaries and wages” in these tables follows the budget’s own category, which includes benefits and pension payments.

While Laguna’s population fell by 4%, the number of full-time City positions rose 38%, and the City’s personnel costs, pay plus benefits and pension payments, roughly doubled, from $44.7 million in 2015-16 to $87.6 million this year. Pay per position also outpaced inflation: average cash pay per full-time position (salary, overtime and other pay) rose from about $104,000 to about $158,000, up 52%, while consumer prices rose about 36% from 2015 to 2025. More people, each paid more: that is how the payroll doubled.

Counting only current full-time employees, and leaving out part-time wages and payments on old pension debt, the City budgets about $158,000 per full-time position in cash pay, and about $205,000 including health insurance and retirement. For comparison, Laguna residents who work full time, year-round had median earnings of about $132,000 for men and $100,500 for women (Census Bureau, 2017-2021). The City figures are averages that include highly paid police and fire positions, so the comparison is approximate, but it compares pay to pay.

Community Development Is a Prime Example

In 2015-16, Community Development had 30 positions, led by a Director and an Assistant Director. Last year’s budget had 49, led by a Director and two Deputy Directors. The number of planners grew from 10 to 14, and the department now also has two Planning Managers.

I am told it now takes two staff members to do the work that one staff member used to do, and yet service levels, by all accounts, have diminished.

More people, each paid more: that is how the payroll doubled.

Update: This year’s budget brings Community Development down to 45 positions by leaving three limited-term planner positions unfunded and eliminating the Building Official position.

The City’s Workplace Needs Fixing

During the tenure of former City Manager Shohreh Dupuis, from 2021 to 2023, there was notable staff turnover, with many experienced employees leaving for other cities and less experienced hires taking their place. Scott Drapkin, who served the City for 24 years, most recently as Planning Manager, was not given the courtesy of an interview for the Community Development Director position. He left for Costa Mesa, where he became Assistant Director of Development Services, and has since joined the City of Encinitas as its Development Services Director. Years later, after Marc Wiener left the Director’s job, the City promoted David Contreras to replace him, and he left the position in less than a year under dubious circumstances. Mark Orgill told me before his first run for City Council that he would fix community development. Four years later that pledge has not been met.

The current City Manager says recruiting experienced planners is hard because of the complexity of our local codes and the unique character of Laguna Beach. But the damage was mostly self-inflicted, and it reflects a longstanding problem with the workplace culture in Community Development that worsened under Ms. Dupuis and former Community Development Director Marc Wiener. Ms. Dupuis left with a severance package worth about $450,000; Mr. Wiener resigned under pressure in January 2024 and received $150,000. Both left signing mutual confidentiality agreements.

Increased Pension Liabilities

The City’s contributions to the Police, Fire and Miscellaneous retirement plans have risen rapidly. In 2015, the City’s unfunded pension liability was about $47 million. By June 2023 it had roughly doubled, to about $97 million.

Paying down the old liability does nothing to offset costs that grow with headcount.

Update: In his September 2026 pension memo, City Manager Dave Kiff reports good news, and he deserves credit for publishing it. The unfunded liability fell to $83.5 million as of June 30, 2025, and he estimates it at $68-70 million as of June 30, 2026. (The $88.6 million in the table above predates those figures.) The City’s annual payment, which is required by law, is $9.1 million this year and is expected to peak at about $9.6 million in FY 2027-28, then decline.

Two Caveats. First, most of that improvement came from the stock market, not from City decisions. The City’s payments are not optional; CalPERS requires them by law. The big gains came from investment returns: CalPERS returned 11.6% and 14.8% in the last two years, about double its 6.8% target. Markets can turn quickly. When CalPERS lost 6.1% in 2021-22, Laguna’s unfunded liability jumped from about $51 million to $91 million in a single year.

Second, the memo is about the old, legacy liability; by Mr. Kiff’s count, 72% of it belongs to people who no longer work for the City. It does not address the other pension cost: every position the City adds carries its own ongoing pension cost, year after year, for as long as that person works here. Paying down the old liability does nothing to offset costs that grow with headcount.

What This Year’s Budget Actually Cut

With money short, the FY 2026-27 budget reduces authorized positions by a net of seven. The City Manager described the cuts in Human Resources and his own office as “all currently vacant positions thus far,” and three more were limited-term planner positions. At adoption, the Council also added $315,500 to fund an Assistant City Manager position that had been proposed as frozen.

The Council’s other answer has been new taxes. It has commissioned a resident survey three years in a row; this year’s, by Probolsky Research, tested a sales tax increase, a higher hotel tax and a business license tax on bars and restaurants. In June, Mayor Orgill was one of three council members who voted for yet another survey on the business license tax. Then, on July 7, rather than put a measure on this November’s ballot, the Council voted unanimously to keep exploring new taxes, with a target of the November 2028 ballot. Unless the next Council makes far deeper staffing cuts than this year’s, residents should expect to be asked for new taxes in 2028.

Who Is Responsible

Ultimately, responsibility lies with the City Council. Bob Whalen and Sue Kempf have been the Council’s power brokers since 2018, and a long series of 5-0 votes reflects how firmly they consolidated control. Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi joined them in December 2022. Since then, authorized positions have gone from 339 to a peak of 366. Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi are all on the November 3 ballot, asking for four more years.

Unless the next Council makes far deeper staffing cuts, residents should expect to be asked for new taxes in 2028.

Summary

The growth in City staff is a poor use of public funds that could go to more parks, recreation facilities like a municipal pool, affordable housing, or even pickleball courts if that is what residents want. This level of spending is not sustainable. Just as serious, the City’s workplace culture has been unhealthy for years. Dramatic changes are needed, starting with who sits on the Council.

On November 3, I’m voting for Joy Berry, Laura Parisi and Ashley Cintas, and yes on Measure E.

If you agree or disagree, I would like to hear from you.

Sincerely,
George
949-295-0832

George Weiss is a former Laguna Beach City Council member (2020-2024) and a long-time civic advocate.

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.

Sources:

City of Laguna Beach, Adopted Budget FY 2015-16: History of Authorized Positions (p. 5a); Personnel, Public Works and Community Development position summaries.

City of Laguna Beach, Adopted Budget FY 2026-27: Authorized Full-Time Positions (pp. 63-68); City Manager’s transmittal letter (pp. 11-13); Pensions (p. 22); changes made at adoption.

Wages, salaries and pension figures in the tables: Adopted Budget FY 2015-16 and Proposed Budget FY 2025-26.

Data USA, Laguna Beach, CA (2024): population and median household income.

Pay per position: City of Laguna Beach Adopted Budgets FY 2015-16 (All Funds Summary) and FY 2026-27 (department Salaries and Benefits accounts). Resident earnings: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey 2017-2021, via Neilsberg.

City of Laguna Beach, Study Session Item 5, June 9, 2026 (2026 Survey Results and Potential Revenue Ballot Measures); Voice of OC, “Laguna Beach Scraps Tax Increase Proposals, For Now,” July 13, 2026.

City Manager Dave Kiff, “About Pensions at the City of Laguna Beach (September 2026 Update),” Tables 2-4.

Teri Sforza, Orange County Register, July 2025 (2024 California State Controller payroll data), as reported in California City News, “Report Names California’s Most (and Least) Staffed Cities,” July 31, 2025.

Laguna Beach Indy, “Marc Wiener vacates post as city’s community development director,” January 2024.

City of Encinitas, Meet the Executive Team (Scott Drapkin biography).