Farmers’ Market
Where should it operate—and how should access, parking and neighborhood impacts be balanced?
Read candidate positions →
HomeMenu
2026 Laguna Beach City Council
Candidates’ Voter Guide
Incumbents vs. challengers
Three incumbents. Six challengers. Three seats. Our straw poll shows participating visitors’ preferences—not a forecast of the election.
Introductory remarks removed; candidate answers were not altered.Prepared by Advocates for Laguna Residents PAC from resident feedback, research, forum quotations and candidate submissions. This is not an official County or City voter guide; inclusion does not imply a candidate’s endorsement of this guide or our PAC.
Ballots go out next week.
Be prepared before you vote!
Mailing begins Monday, October 5. Election Day: November 3. Official voting information ↗
Issues that matter to Laguna
Compare positions. Read full answers. Decide for yourself.
Measure E / Term limits
Term limits: a first check on power—and a step toward election reform?
Should Laguna study Seal Beach’s majority-and-runoff system—or ranked-choice voting?
Mark Orgill · Written answer
Election reform
“I am open to studying election reforms, including runoffs, ranked-choice voting and term limits, but I would not assume that Seal Beach's system is automatically right for Laguna Beach.”
Submitted answer to question 1
- Sue Kempf’s first election, 2018: 4,483 votes on 13,650 ballots—32.8% of participating voters. That is about one-third, not a majority. Official results →
- The question: Does citywide plurality sufficiently reflect voters’ preferences, or should Laguna study alternatives?
- Ranked-choice voting: A possible reform to study, with the design for a multi-seat election specified. It does not automatically mean every winner receives support from more than half of voters.
Votes on ballots are not the same as a share of all registered voters. Voters may select multiple candidates; an unselected candidate has not necessarily received an opposing vote.
See Laguna–Seal Beach factoids →Other issues that matter
Coyotes
What concrete steps should the City take to protect residents and pets?
Read candidate positions →West Nile virus
How should the City and vector-control agencies address mosquito breeding and inform residents?
Read candidate positions →Additional resident questions—not part of the seven-question questionnaire. Ashley Cintas addressed the Farmers’ Market, coyotes and estuary in her additional submission.
Read Ashley’s additional responses → · See the complete question bank →Factoids
Laguna vs. Seal Beach: how votes become power
- Seal Beach: majority support. One Councilmember per district. A candidate needs more than 50% of votes cast for that office; otherwise, the top two face a runoff. City Charter §§508–509 →
- Laguna: plurality, citywide. The three highest vote-getters win this year. No majority threshold or runoff. Receiving votes on fewer than half the ballots does not mean the other voters voted against that candidate.
- Midterms can elect the Council majority. Laguna’s 2026 midterm election fills three of five seats; the 2024 presidential election filled two. The three winners can form a governing majority. 2026 seats → · 2024 seats →
- Lower turnout, consequential choices. Orange County turnout was 54.7% in the 2022 midterm, versus 76.1% in the 2024 presidential election. Countywide figures—not Laguna-specific rates or a 2026 forecast. 2022 → · 2024 →
Council candidates
Nine candidates. Three seats.
Ballot order. Forum quotes and written answers.
1Incumbent
Forum absence
Sue Kempf
Visit Sue Kempf's campaign website ↗She agreed to attend the Advocates forum, then canceled the morning of it. She did not participate despite offers of Zoom or a representative to connect her by phone. Her seven written answers have since been received.
Her explanation for missing the forum
“I don’t miss meetings and have never missed a council meeting but if we did have a Council meeting tonight, I wouldn’t feel well enough to attend.”
Written statement supplied to Advocates organizers · September 15, 2026; not spoken at the forum
Promenade
“First of all, the project is $500,000 under budget.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:40:55
Seven questions: Complete answers received
2Challenger
City leadership
Ashley Cintas
Visit Ashley Cintas's campaign website ↗City leadership
“The last four years have been a lot of reactive decision making, focusing on pieces of an issue versus a whole system.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:55:04
Seven questions: Complete answers received after the deadline
3Challenger
Fiscal policy
Laura Parisi
No campaign website located
Fiscal policy
“I don't support tax increases or bond indebtedness to fund operating deficits.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:53:28
Why she says she is running
“I'm running for city council today, not because I'm tired of being treasurer, but because the council and management have made it increasingly difficult for me to do the job the way you have every right to expect me to do the job.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:50:56
Seven questions: Declined the questionnaire
4Incumbent
Tourism management
Mark Orgill
Visit Mark Orgill's campaign website ↗Tourism management
“I believe that anything can be better managed instead of left unmanaged.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:37:59
Promenade
“I do think that there'll be people that will enjoy it.”
Advocates forum · 1:07:51
Seven questions: Complete answers received
5Challenger
St. Catherine's
Nick Aronoff
Visit Nick Aronoff's campaign website ↗St. Catherine's
“It's supposed to be a community resource and we need to activate it.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:35:42
Seven questions: Complete answers received
6Challenger
Historic preservation
Edward Bayuk
No campaign website located
Historic preservation
“I'm a big advocate of keeping old houses the way they are.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:45:32
Seven questions: Complete answers received
7Challenger
Downtown plan
Joy Berry
Visit Joy Berry's campaign website ↗Downtown plan
“I don't think our downtown is broken, so I don't think we should be changing it.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:05:38
Seven questions: Complete answers received
8Incumbent
Closing statement
Alex Rounaghi
Visit Alex Rounaghi's campaign website ↗Closing statement
“We inherited something extraordinary, and I think we have an obligation to leave it even better for future generations.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:50:59
Seven questions: No response received by the final extended deadline
9Challenger
Closing statement
Karen Martin
Visit Karen Martin's campaign website ↗Closing statement
“Residents speak. City Hall must listen. I will listen, show up, do the homework and explain my decisions.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:44:02
Seven questions: No response received by the final extended deadline
Major voter issues
Where candidates differ
Quotes, summaries and sources. Full answers one click away.
Major issue
The Promenade
Cost, process, permanence and public accountability
On the record: 5–0
On June 11, 2025, the Council unanimously denied appeals and sustained approvals for the permanent Promenade. All three incumbents on this ballot—Sue Kempf, Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi—participated in that vote.
Read the official Council minutes ↗Defends the cost record
Sue Kempf
Promenade cost
“First of all, the project is $500,000 under budget.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:40:55
Questions cost and process
Ashley Cintas and Karen Martin
Cintas challenged the project’s cost and schedule. Martin described the Promenade as a turning point in how City Hall responds to residents.
Forum-position summary; candidates may provide corrections or context.Answered at the September 15 forum
Mark Orgill
Whether residents would embrace the completed Forest Avenue Promenade: Asked whether he still believed residents would embrace the completed Promenade, Orgill said he expected people to come to enjoy it over time. He emphasized its role as a social gathering space and said some people were already enjoying it.
Advocates for Laguna Residents candidate forum · approximately 1:04:59–1:08:22Question for all candidates: Will you support one complete public accounting of the temporary closure, design and construction, and continuing maintenance costs?
Tree removal: what was known—and when?
The City’s June 12 filing reports high soil salinity, weak or damaged roots and instability after a eucalyptus fell in March 2026. Nine trees were removed April 20; another was removed May 2 after pathogen testing. The approved design had assumed these trees would remain.
Questions: Why weren’t these risks identified before construction? Who authorized removal, what notice was given, and why was that timing necessary? What hybrid and permanent options were directed and presented? How does the design address tsunami evacuation and coastal flooding?
The findings do not establish seawater as the sole cause or that every Forest Avenue tree was removed. Kempf’s involvement in introducing the Promenade is documented; a direction from her to omit a hybrid option or remove the trees is not established here.
City’s tree-replacement filing ↗ · Tree pathology record ↗ · Kempf’s City biography ↗ · Tsunami preparedness ↗Major issue
Providence has its line in the sand. What is yours?
Emergency care, inpatient acute care and the future of the property
Urgency
Ashley Cintas
Hospital and emergency care
“We are losing the E.R., and that’s a very serious issue.”
Candidate-forum statement
Broad approach
Alex Rounaghi
Rounaghi said every option must be considered. The written follow-up asks him—and every candidate—to identify a minimum acceptable outcome.
Forum-position summaryThe unanswered test
All candidates
Providence has stated its position. What is your line in the sand for keeping 24-hour emergency care and inpatient acute care in Laguna Beach?
Compare the submitted answers →Required specifics: State the minimum acceptable outcome and what the City should do if Providence will not meet it.
Major issue
Fiscal Responsibility
Taxes, spending choices, visitor costs and parking
No tax or debt for deficits
Laura Parisi
Fiscal policy
“I don’t support tax increases or bond indebtedness to fund operating deficits.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:53:28
Broad agreement—with a limit
Parking structures
Eight candidates rejected using residents’ taxpayer dollars for a parking structure. Sue Kempf said she had favored one but was now unsure.
What that does not answer: A “no” to taxpayer funding does not necessarily mean opposition to a privately financed or parking-revenue-funded structure.
Novel funding proposal
Edward Bayuk
Parking structure funding
“My answer is no, but there are ways to increase revenue to build a parking structure from the parking revenue.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:17:37
Still needed: Before supporting a new tax or fee, identify one expenditure to reduce, postpone or eliminate—and quantify the tradeoff. Candidates should also name a specific way visitors would pay a greater share of visitor-generated costs.
Major issue
Candidate Priorities
What each candidate would do first—and what would materially change
Activate a public asset
Nick Aronoff
St. Catherine’s
“It’s supposed to be a community resource and we need to activate it.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:35:42
Resident-centered process
Karen Martin
Candidate priorities
“Residents speak. City Hall must listen. I will listen, show up, do the homework and explain my decisions.”
Village Laguna forum · 01:44:02
Comparative question
All candidates
What would be your first order of business, and what accomplishment would you want voters to attribute to your tenure 10 years from now?
Compare the submitted answers →Major issue
Safety
Wildfire evacuation, emergency care and environmental health
Distinctive public-health point
Nick Aronoff
Aronoff connected conditions at the Aliso Creek estuary with mosquito breeding and possible West Nile virus risk—a dimension no other candidate raised in that discussion.
Advocates forum discussionPreparedness test
Wildfire evacuation
Should Laguna conduct an actual neighborhood evacuation exercise—not merely an agency tabletop exercise? If yes, by when?
Compare the submitted answers →Connected issue
Emergency medical access
The future of the hospital and E.R. is also a public-safety question: candidates are being asked to define the service they will not allow Laguna to lose.
Major issue
Changing the Look of Downtown
Updating the Downtown Specific Plan versus preserving Laguna’s existing scale and character
Support updating the plan
Sue Kempf · Downtown Specific Plan
“I do support the DSP.”
Village Laguna forum
Mark Orgill · Downtown Specific Plan
“I am in favor of updating the plan.”
Village Laguna forum
Alex Rounaghi · Downtown Specific Plan
“You’re essentially having the same height limits but allowing for non-artists to live there.”
Village Laguna forum
Emphasize preservation or limits
Ashley Cintas · Downtown height
“I am not for increasing the height downtown.”
Village Laguna forum
Laura Parisi · Downtown plan
“I love the downtown the way it is.”
Village Laguna forum
Joy Berry · Downtown plan
“I don’t think our downtown is broken, so I don’t think we should be changing it.”
Village Laguna forum
Conditional or alternative approaches
Nick Aronoff: Opposed third- and fourth-story buildings throughout downtown.
Edward Bayuk: Opposed four stories and removing historic buildings.
Karen Martin: Called for a reset with realistic alternatives.
Status-quo label: We use it only where a candidate expressly favors leaving current conditions substantially unchanged. Preservation concerns alone are not treated as opposition to every update.
Voter survey
What issues should we press the candidates on?
We received roughly 100 public questions and suggested topics. Time did not permit every question to be asked, and some questions that were asked did not receive a direct answer. We are publishing the broader question bank so voters can see what remains unresolved.
Vote below if you want Advocates for Laguna Residents to press the candidates for an answer on any question or issue that went unasked or unanswered.
This is an informal public-interest survey, not a scientific poll. Selecting an issue does not indicate support for any candidate or for the premise of a particular question.
Where candidates separate
Stark differences—and revealing moments
Scroll across the issues. We identify consensus, lone positions and questions that still deserve a direct answer.
Measure E — Term Limits / Check on Retained Power
A clean challenger–incumbent split
All six challengers supported Council term limits. All three incumbents—Sue Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi—opposed them.
Source: Village Laguna candidate forumCompare term-limit positions →Forest Avenue Promenade
Cost, process and accountability
Promenade cost
“First of all, the project is $500,000 under budget.”
Village Laguna forum · 00:40:55
Sue Kempf defended the project’s cost. Ashley Cintas said it exceeded cost and schedule; Karen Martin called it a turning point.
Do you still believe voters will embrace the Promenade?Orgill also described its social gathering purpose. Excerpt from the automated transcript. Full exchange · 1:04:59–1:08:22 →
Compare Promenade positions →The moderator recalled Orgill’s earlier assurance: “Wait till it’s built. Everyone will love it.” He then asked whether Orgill still felt that way.
Mark Orgill’s reply
“I do think that there’ll be people that will enjoy it.”
Advocates forum transcript · 1:07:51
Aliso Creek estuary
Nick Aronoff stood out for specificity
Aronoff connected estuary conditions to mosquito breeding and possible West Nile virus risk—a public-health dimension no other candidate raised in that discussion.
Source: Advocates forum discussionRead the estuary remarks →Hospital and emergency care
Clear urgency; details still needed
Hospital and emergency care
“We are losing the E.R., and that’s a very serious issue.”
Candidate-forum statement
Ashley Cintas emphasized urgency. Alex Rounaghi said every option must be considered. All candidates were asked for a minimum acceptable outcome in writing.
Compare hospital answers →Where they agree
Taxpayer-funded parking structure
Eight candidates gave a clear “no” to using residents’ tax dollars for a parking structure. Sue Kempf said she had favored it previously but was now unsure.
Source: Village Laguna candidate forumCompare parking statements →Still unanswered
Should a Council seat require 50%+1?
No clear candidate answer was located. Each candidate has been asked whether Laguna should study a majority/runoff, ranked-choice or related reform.
Written responses requestedRead election-reform answers →Candidate-to-candidate contrasts
When one candidate pressed the record—and another answered
Nick Aronoff challenged the current use of St. Catherine’sVillage Laguna · 00:35:42
St. Catherine’s
“It’s supposed to be a community resource and we need to activate it.”
Village Laguna · 00:35:42
Mark Orgill replied · St. Catherine’s
“The grass area is no longer being used as a sports field.”
Village Laguna · 00:36:11
Joy Berry challenged tourism-marketing spendingVillage Laguna · 01:29:10
Tourism-marketing spending
“I don’t think people need to find—we have to market to people.”
Village Laguna · 01:29:10
Mark Orgill answered · Tourism-marketing spending
“$500,000 of that money got redirected to the city”
Village Laguna · 01:30:53
Orgill said the funds were redirected to mitigate impacts.
Laura Parisi disagreed with Alex Rounaghi on fundraiser ethicsVillage Laguna · 01:18:20
Fundraiser ethics
“I don’t think it’s ethical, actually.”
Village Laguna · 01:18:20
Rounaghi’s position: inviting off-duty employee union representatives was ethical. Mark Orgill made the same distinction. 01:17:32–01:19:01
Read candidate remarks and answers →Accountability to voters
Do candidates owe voters answers—and follow-through on their commitments?
Every candidate received the same seven questions. Submitted answers are included in this guide.
- Sue Kempf: Canceled the forum that morning, citing illness. Offered Zoom or a surrogate phone connection; did not attend. Submitted all seven written answers.
- Alex Rounaghi: Submitted all seven answers and an optional conflict-of-interest response after the deadline; included in this guide.
- Karen Martin: Said she would respond. Extension provided; no answers received by the deadline.
- Ashley Cintas: Submitted all seven answers and additional responses after the deadline; included in this guide.
- Mark Orgill, Nick Aronoff, Edward Bayuk and Joy Berry: Submitted answers. Laura Parisi: Declined the questionnaire, explaining that she is intentionally keeping a very low profile.
Your judgment: What weight should a candidate’s answers, participation and follow-through carry in your vote?
Source: organizer correspondence. Voters decide what this record means.Follow the money
Follow the Money
Who is funding the race—and how concentrated is that support?
What interests do contributors have in City decisions, and how do candidates safeguard independent judgment?
Contributions establish financial support, not proof of improper influence. Donor interests and relationships require documented evidence.
Open the full funding and donor comparison →
Incumbents vs. challengers · reported candidate contributions
Calendar-year-to-date total contributions (Form 460 summary, line 5, column B) from the latest reviewed periodic filings. These totals may include loans or candidate self-funding.
| Candidate | Status | Reported contributions | Official filing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sue Kempf | Incumbent | $38,752.00 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Mark Orgill | Incumbent | $28,935.61 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Alex Rounaghi | Incumbent | $65,742.18 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Ashley Cintas | Challenger | $26,763.00 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Laura Parisi | Challenger | Periodic total pending | Total not yet verified |
| Nick Aronoff | Challenger | $10,575.00 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Edward Bayuk | Challenger | Periodic total pending | Total not yet verified |
| Joy Berry | Challenger | $11,689.00 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
| Karen Martin | Challenger | $1,599.00 | Form 460 · summary ↗ |
Periodic reporting periods end September 19, 2026, except Joy Berry’s filing, which ends September 17. Reviewed October 8. Pending means unavailable in this review, not zero. The challenger subtotal is incomplete; a definitive group fundraising ratio cannot be calculated. Filings can be amended.
Do the same donors support all three incumbents?
Donor overlap and complete occupation subtotals are unavailable in this review; individual donor names are omitted.
Outside support · separate from candidate accounts
OUTSIDE CONTRIBUTIONS · $100,000
Regency Properties · supporting the three incumbents through an outside committee
Regency Properties, L.P. and Affiliated Entities was reported as contributing $100,000 on September 30 to the Laguna Beach Good Leadership Committee Supporting Kempf, Rounaghi and Orgill for City Council 2026 (FPPC ID 1497439). Its October 1 Form 497 reports this contribution once, supporting the three incumbents together; no candidate allocation is reported. Committee Form 497 ↗
Independent expenditures: $61,465.39 for October 2. The committee’s October 3 Forms 496 report $20,488.48 supporting Sue Kempf, $20,488.46 supporting Alex Rounaghi and $20,488.45 supporting Mark Orgill. This is a dated spending snapshot, separate from the $100,000 received and candidate contributions; it does not establish current cash or total committee spending. Kempf ↗ · Rounaghi ↗ · Orgill ↗
Other candidates: outside support is not established by the reviewed filings shown here. This does not mean none exists.
Regency Properties’ background
Official Coastal Commission records identify Regency Properties, L.P. with Surf & Sand Resort in Laguna Beach. A March 26, 2021 staff report names “Surf & Sand Resort, Regency Properties, L.P.” as the applicant for resort-hotel renovations. This documents a local hotel/property connection; it does not establish the contributor’s motives, current ownership structure, or all affiliated entities. Coastal Commission applicant and project record ↗
Direct PAC contributions and a later candidate loan
A Firefighters PAC Form 460 reports $500 in direct monetary contributions to each of Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi. These are candidate-committee contributions, not independent expenditures. They are not added to the totals above, avoiding double counting where already included. Firefighters PAC · Schedules D/E ↗
Joy Berry’s Form 497, filed October 5, reports a $3,000 receipt on October 2 described as “loan.” The loan checkbox is blank and no interest rate is reported. This later receipt is shown separately from her September 17 periodic total. Berry Form 497 ↗
Where individual contributions come from
Selected verified Schedule A entries below show reported occupations and employers without individual donor names or residential addresses. These are examples, not complete occupation or industry totals. A complete breakdown for each of the nine candidates is unavailable in this review.
| Candidate | Reported occupation | Reported employer | Amount / date | Official filing |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Orgill | Real estate | CCH Management LLC | $500 Aug. 25, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 5 ↗ |
| Mark Orgill | Builder / developer | The Shipp Group | $250 Aug. 26, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 7 ↗ |
| Sue Kempf | Real-estate investor | Self-employed | $500 Aug. 22, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 11 ↗ |
| Sue Kempf | Real-estate advisor | Self-employed | $500 Aug. 25, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 13 ↗ |
| Alex Rounaghi | Builder | Empress Builders | $500 Aug. 8, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 10 ↗ |
| Alex Rounaghi | Developer | Space Investment Partners | $500 Aug. 25, 2026 | Schedule A · p. 27 ↗ |
An employer is an affiliation reported for an individual contribution; it does not mean the employer made that contribution. Occupation entries do not establish donor motives or improper influence. Business and PAC contributions identify the contributing entity. Petition signers are not treated as donors.
Jungle General — Democracy with a small “d” →
How to read the money
Candidate contributions go to candidate committees. Loans are a separately identifiable source that may already be included in Form 460 totals. Outside committee contributions are money received by another committee. Independent expenditures are that committee’s spending to support or oppose candidates. Do not combine receipts with spending, allocate group support without evidence, or count the same contribution twice.
Full real-estate and commercial-interest shares remain under review.
Review official campaign filings ↗Incumbents and challengers
KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE INCUMBENTS AND CHALLENGERS
Grouped by the stated position or recorded vote.
Measure E / Council term limits
Six challengers · support term limits
Read the positions and record →Ashley Cintas, Laura Parisi, Nick Aronoff, Edward Bayuk, Joy Berry and Karen Martin
Three incumbents · oppose term limits
Read the positions and record →Sue Kempf, Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi
Lower Laguna’s $2,500 appeal fee
Six challengers · favor lowering it
Read the positions and record →Ashley Cintas, Laura Parisi, Nick Aronoff, Edward Bayuk, Joy Berry and Karen Martin
Three incumbents · oppose lowering it
Read the positions and record →Sue Kempf, Mark Orgill and Alex Rounaghi
Permanent Forest Avenue Promenade
Challengers · varied alternatives and critiques
Read the positions and record →The six challengers do not share one Promenade proposal. Compare their own statements above and their submitted written answers.
Incumbents · voted for the approvals
Read the positions and record →Sue Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi participated in the Council’s unanimous June 11, 2025 vote sustaining the permanent project approvals.
Are the incumbents supporting one another?
At the Advocates forum, Alex Rounaghi stated support for Mark Orgill and Sue Kempf. Orgill said he would endorse Rounaghi and Kempf. Karen Martin stated support for all non-incumbents. Sue Kempf was absent; this exchange does not establish her own endorsements.
| Candidate | Support stated at the forum | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Alex Rounaghi | Mark Orgill and Sue Kempf | Full-forum transcript · 37:37–38:13 |
| Mark Orgill | Said he would endorse Alex Rounaghi and Sue Kempf | Full-forum transcript · 38:13–38:30 |
| Karen Martin | All non-incumbents | Full-forum transcript · 36:50–37:37 |
| Sue Kempf | Not established by this exchange | Absent |
This is evidence of stated candidate support, not proof of a formally coordinated slate or shared donors. Other candidates’ endorsements are not established here.
Read the full forum transcript and recording source ↗Summaries rely on an automatically generated transcript; wording is paraphrased.Should the cost of an appeal limit residents’ access to review?
| City / source date | Published amount | What the record says |
|---|---|---|
| Laguna · Before July 2025 | $2,000 | 2025 fee-change table identifies the existing Council appeal fee. |
| Laguna · 2025 change / published form | $2,500 | Change table proposes a $500 increase (25%); the published appeal form lists $2,500. |
| Dana Point · October 2020 schedule | $250 residential $500 nonresidential | Listed for appeals to the Planning Commission and Council. |
Historical comparison—not a certified current price list. The $987 entry in Laguna’s published schedule concerns hedge-height appeals, a different category from the general $2,500 appeal. Dana Point’s current amounts and a lowest-cost ranking are not yet verified.
Laguna fee-change table → · Laguna form → · Dana Point schedule → · Full comparison →
Planning Commission and Design Review Board appeals
The fee is only part of the comparison. Who may appeal, how long they have, and whether the Council considers the matter afresh can affect residents’ access to review.
Dana Point deserves a closer look: its published zoning code allows any group or individual to appeal, with a 15-calendar-day filing period. Laguna’s replacement §25.05.070, adopted July 21, 2026, no longer states the former general 300-foot property-owner restriction; separate coastal-permit provisions still apply.
Three incumbents, six challengers: how votes are distributed
In a three-seat, at-large plurality election, each voter may choose up to three candidates and the three highest vote-getters win. A majority of voters can want different leadership yet fail to elect a challenger if their votes are spread across six candidates while incumbent supporters consistently choose the same three.
This creates a systemic vote-concentration advantage for a cohesive three-candidate group facing a divided six-candidate field. Incumbents can benefit from it, but the ballot rule does not itself favor the word “incumbent”: the same mathematics would benefit any cohesive group of three.
| Voting pattern | Each incumbent | Each challenger | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 400 voters choose all three incumbents; 600 voters divide their 1,800 votes equally among six challengers | 400 | 300 | All three incumbents win, despite only 40% of voters choosing them |
| The same 600 voters instead choose the same three challengers | 400 | 600 for the chosen three; 0 for the others | The chosen three challengers win |
What the example shows: Concentrated support can outperform support spread across more candidates. This can benefit any cohesive group of three, not just incumbents. Actual results depend on individual support, overlapping choices and turnout; neither group is guaranteed to win.
These numbers are a hypothetical example, not polling or a forecast. A voter’s three votes cannot all be given to one candidate. Laura Parisi is a sitting City Treasurer, but is a non-incumbent for a Council seat. Forum organizer’s voting explanation ↗
Comparison order: three Council incumbents first, followed by six non-incumbents. Ballot order is preserved within each group; candidate profiles above remain in ballot order.
The 50%+1 row is intentionally left open: no clear candidate answer was located, and written responses have been requested. The term-limit row records each candidate’s forum answer; it does not claim a separate formal endorsement of every word in Measure E.
Written follow-up
Seven questions for every candidate
Compare the submitted answers question by question, then read each complete submission verbatim.
Election reform and Measure E
Measure E requires a majority vote, while Laguna council candidates may win by plurality. Should Laguna study the Seal Beach model—district elections, term limits and a 50-percent-plus-one requirement or runoff—or other election reforms? If not, why is Laguna’s present system preferable?
Compare submitted answers →Hospital and emergency care
Providence has stated its position. What is your line in the sand for keeping 24-hour emergency care and inpatient acute care in Laguna Beach? What is your minimum acceptable outcome for the hospital property, and what should the City do if Providence will not meet it?
Compare submitted answers →Forest Avenue Promenade
Will you support one complete, public accounting of every Promenade-related cost, including the temporary closure, final construction and continuing maintenance?
Compare submitted answers →Visitor-generated costs
Should restaurants bear any part of a special tax aimed at visitors? Whether yes or no, identify the specific tax, fee or other revenue source you would support so visitors pay a greater share of public costs attributable to tourism.
Compare submitted answers →Emergency preparedness
Should Laguna conduct an actual neighborhood wildfire-evacuation exercise beyond an agency tabletop exercise? If yes, by when? If no, why not?
Compare submitted answers →Fiscal priorities
Before supporting a new tax or fee, name one City expenditure or project to reduce, postpone or eliminate. Provide the approximate amount and identify the service or benefit residents would give up.
Compare submitted answers →Laguna in 10 years
Imagine returning to Laguna Beach 10 years from now. If elected, what accomplishment would you be proudest to attribute to your tenure? If not elected, what change or loss would you most fear seeing in Laguna, and why?
Compare submitted answers →Compare candidate answersView the complete question bankView the Democracy With a Small “d” matrix ↗
Seven complete submissions received
Edward Bayuk, Mark Orgill, Joy Berry, Nick Aronoff, Sue Kempf, Ashley Cintas and Alex Rounaghi submitted answers. Ashley’s and Alex’s submissions were received after the deadline. Laura Parisi declined, saying she is intentionally keeping a very low profile. The response page shows the comparison and the status recorded for every candidate.
Open candidate answers and participation record →Democracy with a small “d”
Laguna Beach and Seal Beach
Two similar coastal cities use different rules to translate votes into governing power.
Laguna Beach
Plurality, at large
- Citywide multi-seat elections
- No majority or runoff requirement
- No current Council term limits
- Council selects the mayor
Seal Beach
Districts, majority runoff
- Five geographic districts
- 50%+1 or a runoff
- Two consecutive four-year terms
- Council selects the mayor
Appeals factoid: Laguna’s published appeal form lists $2,500. Dana Point’s FAQ lists $500, but older budget totals are revenue figures, not a per-appeal price. Read the appeal comparison for source dates, review standards and fee-verification limits.
Campaign community snapshot
Take our straw poll
Three incumbents. Six challengers. Three seats. Voters may choose up to three candidates; the top three win. Votes count for individuals, not groups. Support spread across more candidates can affect who finishes in the top three.
This straw poll lets participants share their choices and see how other participants are thinking before voting.
Official election rules · Candidate Handbook, page 18 →
Please submit only one response during the campaign season. The poll accepts one response per browser/device for the campaign. It does not verify identity; using another browser or device could create another entry. If multiple residents in a household participate, each should use their own device.
Non-scientific and not an election. Results reflect participating visitors, not the electorate. Advocates may consider endorsements after hearing from the residents we serve.
Have a question about a candidate or issue? Send it to us and we will pass selected questions along with our seven key issue questions. Candidate responses are being requested and will be published when received.
The poll does not ask for your name or email. We do not share individual poll responses or browser/device identifiers with candidates or campaigns; only aggregate results are published. Our hosting and security providers may process routine technical information, including IP addresses, as described in our Privacy Policy.
Already submitted an earlier poll response?
You can answer Measure E once here. It will not change your earlier candidate choices or other answers.
We do not request your name or email. The poll uses a browser/device identifier to prevent another submission from that browser/device during the campaign. It does not verify identity. We do not use IP addresses to limit poll responses, so residents sharing an internet connection may each use their own device. Only aggregate results are published.
On the record
Compare what they said
Selected, sourced excerpts help show agreement and disagreement without substituting our judgment for yours.
Downtown growth and historic preservation
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I do support the DSP.”
Village Laguna · 00:06:33
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I am not for increasing the height downtown.”
Village Laguna · 00:15:38
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I love the downtown the way it is.”
Village Laguna · 00:14:30
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I am in favor of updating the plan.”
Village Laguna · 00:04:37
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I would be against adding the third and fourth story buildings to all of downtown.”
Village Laguna · 00:03:30
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I'm not for four stories and ripping down historical buildings.”
Village Laguna · 00:12:07
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“I don't think our downtown is broken, so I don't think we should be changing it.”
Village Laguna · 00:05:38
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“You're essentially having the same height limits but allowing for non-artists to live there.”
Village Laguna · 00:13:32
Downtown growth and historic preservation
“There is an opportunity to do a reset on the downtown specific plan and show some realistic alternatives.”
Village Laguna · 00:08:10
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“I used to be in favor of it. I'm not sure now.”
Village Laguna · 00:18:08
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“I don't think we should be using residents' taxpayer dollars to be able to build that parking structure.”
Village Laguna · 00:17:07
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“No, I don't support that.”
Village Laguna · 00:17:19
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“The answer is no.”
Village Laguna · 00:18:28
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“No, not with public funds.”
Village Laguna · 00:18:46
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“My answer is no, but there are ways to increase revenue to build a parking structure from the parking revenue.”
Village Laguna · 00:17:37
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“No. Absolutely not.”
Village Laguna · 00:18:17
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“Not at taxpayer expense.”
Village Laguna · 00:17:25
Parking structures at taxpayer expense
“I do not support using our residents' taxpayer dollars to fund a parking structure anywhere in town.”
Village Laguna · 00:17:56