2 From: Beaches For All <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2026 5:31 PM
To: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Sunshade and Surfing/Swimming code changes Agenda Item #12 [NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] correction -I apologize the first sentence should indicate the April 14th agenda item was misagendized and had agenda problems.
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beaches For All <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 5:25 PM
Subject: Sunshade and Surfing/Swimming code changes Agenda Item #12 To: <[email protected]>
Dear Laguna Beach City Council,
We respectfully request you do not perform a second reading on the ordinance changes related to agenda item #12 due to the fact that the first reading on April 12th 2026. Please acknowledge the following Demand to Cure and Correct letter below.
Sincerely,
Beaches for All
__________________________________________________________________________ Re: Demand to Cure and Correct – Brown Act Violations and Misleading Legislative Record April 14, 2026 City Council Meeting (Agenda Item #16)
Dear City Clerk:
Pursuant to Government Code §54960.1, this letter constitutes a formal demand that the City of Laguna Beach cure and correct multiple violations of the California Brown Act arising from actions taken by the City Council on April 14, 2026, under Agenda Item #16.
These violations include (1) a materially misleading and legally deficient agenda description, and (2) the use of a staff report and redline document that failed to accurately represent existing law and the scope of proposed changes.
3 1. Materially Misleading Agenda Description
Government Code §54954.2 requires that an agenda provide a “brief general description” sufficient to inform the public of the business to be transacted.
The April 14, 2026 agenda described Item #16 in terms of “special event permits” and related matters.
However, the Council’s action included substantive, generally applicable regulatory changes, including:
• Adoption and/or introduction of new restrictions on sunshades affecting general public use of City beaches; and
• Adoption and/or introduction of changes to swimming and sur ing regulations, including socalled “blackball” rules governing ocean use.
These are permanent, citywide public access and use regulations, not limited to special events.
A reasonable member of the public reviewing the agenda would not have been on notice that such sweeping changes would be considered. The agenda therefore a irmatively mischaracterized the scope o the action and failed to comply with the Brown Act.
2. Subsequent Agenda Revision Con irms De ect
The City’s subsequent agenda for the second reading (Agenda Item #12, April 2026) appears to expand or “clean up” the description of the ordinance.
This post hoc revision is strong evidence that the original April 14 agenda description was inadequate.
Despite this revision, the agenda still fails to clearly disclose changes to swimming and surfing regulations, demonstrating a continuing lack of proper notice.
3. Misleading and De ective Redline in Sta Report
The Brown Act violation was compounded by the City’s use of a misleading redline document in the April 14 staff report.
The redline purports to show:
• Existing code in black text; and
• Deletions/additions in red text.
However, comparison to the City’s published Municipal Code demonstrates that the redline does not accurately re lect existing law.
For example:
4 • The redline identifies §18.20.020 as “Swimming and Surfing—Hazardous conditions”; • The current Municipal Code identifies §18.20.020 as “Surfing—Time and place permitted.” This is not a minor formatting issue. It reflects a undamental mismatch between the redline and the actual code, including section numbering and substantive content.
As a result, the redline:
• Misrepresents what constitutes existing law;
• Obscures the scope and nature of proposed changes; and • Misleads both the public and decision-makers.
A legislative body cannot satisfy the Brown Act by providing materials that purport to disclose changes while in act mischaracterizing the underlying law.
4. Legal Consequences
Because the City:
• Failed to provide adequate agenda notice; and
• Relied on misleading legislative materials;
the actions taken on April 14, 2026 are null and void under Government Code §54960.1(a)(1).
The combination of de ective notice and misleading documentation deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to understand and participate in the decision-making process.
5. Demand to Cure and Correct
The City must cure and correct these violations by:
1. Rescinding all actions taken under Agenda Item #16 on April 14, 2026, including any resolutions, ordinance introductions, or direction to staff;
2. Re-noticing the matter with a legally adequate agenda description that clearly discloses all proposed regulatory changes, including:
o Sunshade restrictions; and
o Swimming and surfing (blackball) regulations;
3. Providing a corrected and accurate redline that:
o Properly reflects existing Municipal Code provisions; o Accurately identifies deletions and additions; and
o Uses correct section numbering and content consistent with the published code. 5 6. Deadline or Response
The City is required to respond within 30 days of receipt of this demand, stating whether it will cure and correct the challenged action.
If the City fails to do so, I will consider all available legal remedies, including seeking judicial relief to invalidate the action and recovery of attorneys’ fees as permitted by law.
7. Reservation o Rights
This demand is made without prejudice to any other claims, including those arising under the California Coastal Act or other applicable laws governing public access and coastal resources. 3 Exhibits:
Exhibit #1 April 14th Agenda Description:
Exhibit #2 Redline rom April 14th
Exhibit #3 Existing code section description:
6