STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
May 12, 2026
CONSENT
15 SUBJECT: CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026 MEETING
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Receive and file the April 27, 2026 complaint demanding the City Council “cure and correct” alleged Brown Act violations relating to the City Council’s April 14, 2026 consideration of the Title 18 Ordinance (Agenda Item No. 16 at that meeting);
2. Receive and file this report analyzing the allegations in that complaint; and
3. Direct the City Attorney to prepare, execute, and send, a letter pursuant to Government Code section 54960.1(c)(2), to the complainant conveying that the City Council considered the April 27, 2026 email demanding a cure or correction under the Brown Act, determining that no Brown Act violation occurred as the agenda title was sufficient and the City Council action was consistent with the agenda title, and therefore the City Council will not take further action regarding this matter as there is no action to correct.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
On April 27, 2026, the City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach (“City”) received an email from “Beaches for All” (“Complainant”) alleging a Brown Act violation by the City Council and demanding an action to “cure and correct” under Government Code Section 54960.1 (the “Demand”). The Brown Act provides that any person may challenge an action taken by the City Council by filing a written demand to cure or correct the action alleged to have been taken in violation of the Brown Act. (Gov. Code § 54960.1(b).) The City takes the Brown Act—and every allegation related thereto—seriously, even when it would appear on its face to be without merit. The Brown Act dictates that the City Council determine within 30 days of receipt of a demand whether it will “cure or correct” the referenced action.[1] Tonight’s meeting is within the 30-day period for response. Pursuant to Government Code Sections 54960.1(b), the Council must determine whether a violation occurred and if so, whether to cure the violation.
[1] If the City Council does not act within 30 days, it is deemed to have determined not to take any corrective action. (Gov. Code § 54960.1(c)(3).)
DISCUSSION
Allegations/Demand
A copy of the Demand alleging a violation of the Brown Act is attached hereto. (Attachment 1). The Demand asks for the following relief:
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
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. …
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. (Attachment 1 [emphasis in original].)
The basis for the Demand is, at its core, based on the following factual allegations:
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 surfing regulations, including so-called “blackball” rules governing ocean use.
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
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 affirmatively mischaracterized the scope of the action and failed to comply with the Brown Act.
2. Subsequent Agenda Revision Confirms Defect
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 Defective Redline in Staff 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 reflect existing law.
For example:
• 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 fundamental 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 fact mischaracterizing the underlying law. (Attachment 1 [emphasis in original].)
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
April 14, 2026 Agenda and Council Action
The following item was, verbatim, placed on the April 14, 2026 City Council regular meeting agenda as Item No. 16, imaged as below:
While the Demand indicates the agenda title refers to “‘special event permits’ and related matters” (Attachment 1, emphasis added), the above-referenced agenda item clearly describes that the City Council would consider whether to introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending Title 18, as well amendments to Section 6.16.020 and 8.04.010, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. It further describes that Council would also consider whether to adopt a Resolution establishing locations and regulations for special events.
Finally, it states exemptions for CEQA related to each of those actions.
Title 18, as codified in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, is entitled “Beaches and Parks.” The Laguna Beach Municipal Code is available online, and lists all titles by name. All persons are presumed to know local ordinances. (See Elm v. McKee (1956) 139 Cal.App.2d 353.) On April 14, 2026, the City Council met to consider Item No. 16, as agendized. All those wishing to speak were provided with the opportunity to make public comment. Council publicly deliberated on the various identified issues before acting on staff’s recommendation, as was previously directed by the City Council at its January 26, 2026 meeting, including by considering proposed recommended changes to the draft ordinance that were more particularly described in both the staff report and staff recommendation for Item
16. As noted in the Demand, the staff report included a redline—in addition to a clean copy—to make clear to the public the exact changes to the law that were being made by comparing the new language of the
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
ordinance to the existing language. Although the Demand indicates the redline was misleading due to a “fundamental mismatch between the redline and the actual code,” as noted in the staff report, the redline reflects the substantive changes made implementing Council’s direction from its January 27, 2026 meeting—and not as a redline of the pre-existing ordinance.
Critically, the City Council, in conducting the first reading of the Title 18 Ordinance, as identified in the agenda title, did not take any action to add or change items to the ordinance that were not already a subject matter included in Title 18. More specifically, both sunshades and swimming and surfing regulations were already part of Title 18 prior to the consideration of this item; indeed, those were some of the very amendments of Title 18 to which the agenda title refers.
April 28, 2026 Agenda and Council Action
The following item was, verbatim, placed on the April 28, 2026 City Council regular meeting agenda, imaged as below:
The Demand appears to draw a distinction between this agenda title and that of April 14th, as included above, by asserting the April 28th item “expanded or ‘cleaned up’ the description of the ordinance,” apparently in reference to the agenda description including a Resolution “establishing certain shade covering zones at Main Beach and Aliso Beach.” (See Attachment 1.) Notably, however, the title of the Title 18 Ordinance is identical to the April 14 meeting. The reference to shade coverings was because a different and additional Council action (that was not on the April 14 meeting) was added to this agenda— i.e., adopting a Resolution identifying shade covering zones.
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
The Brown Act
The Brown Act's requirement that meetings be open to the public ensures the public's right to attend City Council meetings, subject to limited statutory exceptions (i.e., closed session topics). The Brown Act mandates that “meetings of the legislative body of a local agency shall be open and public, and all persons shall be permitted to attend any meeting of the legislative body of the local agency, except as otherwise provided in this chapter.” (Government Code § 54953(a).) Official actions of a legislative body of a local agency must be taken at a noticed meeting, and every regular meeting of a legislative body must be preceded by a posted agenda that advises the public of the meeting and the matters to be transacted or discussed at that meeting. (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1).) A brief description of an item generally need not exceed 20 words. (Id., § 54954.2(a)(1)(A).) The Brown Act disallows local legislative bodies from acting on any matter not listed on the posted agenda. (Id., § 54954.2(a)(3).) The Brown Act was designed to facilitate public participation in local governmental decisions and to curb misuse of the democratic process by secret legislation.
Before pursuing judicial determination of an action allegedly in violation of the Brown Act is null and void, an interested party must first demand the legislative body cure or correct its alleged mistake. (Government Code § 54960.1(b).) Under the facts presented here, the Complainant made written demand on April 27, 2026 as to certain alleged violations at the April 14, 2026 City Council meeting. (See id., § 54960.1(c)(1).) The City has 30 days to respond to the Demand per the requirements of the Brown Act. (See ibid.)
ANALYSIS
It is the position of the City that the above-referenced agenda description and the Council’s action on Item No. 16 at the April 14, 2026 Council meeting did not violate the Brown Act. Specifically, the abovereferenced agenda title expressly identifies the item to be considered, among other things, included amendments to Title 18. The attachments to Title 18 included the proposed ordinance, in both clean copy and as a redline, to clearly identify the proposed changes being made.
After public comment and deliberation, the City Council considered and adopted staff’s recommendations as to Item No. 16, with certain modifications to the draft ordinance, including but not limited to sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations, per staff’s recommendations. In short, the City Council considered precisely and only what the agenda identified. It took no other action.
The recommended amendments to Title 18 included, inter alia, both changes to sunshade coverings and regulations relating to swimming and surfing regulations. Critically, sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations were subject matters already included in the existing ordinance (that is, before the recommended action). As all persons are presumed to have knowledge of the law, including local ordinances (see Elm, supra, 139 Cal.App.2d 353), members of the public are presumed to have notice of the City’s duly-enacted ordinances, including then-existing sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations.
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
Moreover, the Brown Act contemplates that a “brief general description of an [agenda] item generally not exceed 20 words.” (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(1)(A).) The Brown Act does not contemplate, thus, that the face of the agenda identify each proposed amendment, addition, or deletion. Nevertheless, although the Brown Act does not require a staff report and the draft ordinances as part of the agenda item, Agenda Item no. 16 included a staff report detailing the proposed changes, as well as a redline and clean copy, and the prior staff report and attachments from the City Council’s January 27, 2026 meeting where the Council discussed the item—including sunshade coverings and swimming and surfing regulations—and gave direction. Thus, contrary to the allegations in the Demand, there is no requirement that the agenda more specifically identify the specific topics which may be amended by the proposed Ordinance (although the staff report and attachments nevertheless did so). Accordingly, the City Council appropriately took action on the item listed on the agenda, which was further properly listed.
Further, the comparison drawn by the Demand between the April 14th and April 28th agendas is a red herring.
As noted above, the April 14th agenda did not have an action for consideration of a Resolution identifying zones for sunshade coverings and thus no such resolution was considered as part of that Council action. The April 28th agenda did, by contrast, have an action for consideration of such a Resolution and thus appropriately identified that Resolution on the face of the agenda. Consequently, the agenda title for the April 14 meeting—and the Council’s respective action—were Brown Act compliant.
Finally, the Demand’s allegation that the redline provided as part of the staff report was misleading because “it did not accurately reflect existing law” is without merit. As noted in the staff report, the redline reflected changes from the Council’s prior direction (at the January 27, 2026 meeting). Further, the January 27, 2026 staff report was additionally attached to the April 14, 2026 staff report, which provided in meticulous detail the ordinance’s proposed changes. Moreover, a clean copy of the draft ordinance made clear the proposed new ordinance. In any event, none of these attachments are required by the Brown Act; they are provided for transparency for the public. Thus, the attachments do not establish a Brown Act violation, particularly where the agenda itself adequately described the item and the attachments provided additional (but not legally necessary) detail regarding the proposed changes.
Based on the foregoing, City staff recommends the City Council direct the City Attorney to respond to the Demand stating that the April 14 City Council Agenda Item No. 16 was listed in compliance with the Brown Act, that the City Council took action in compliance with that agenda title, and therefore no Brown Act violation occurred.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no financial impact associated with this recommended action.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
CONSIDER AND RESPOND TO A BROWN ACT ALLEGATION REGARDING THE CITY COUNCIL’S FIRST READING OF THE TITLE 18 ORDINANCE AT ITS APRIL 14, 2026
MEETING
May 12, 2026
The recommended action does not constitute a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378 as an administrative direction that does not have the potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment
ATTACHMENTS
1. Brown Act Cure and Correct Demand
Submitted By: Megan Garibaldi Approved: .David A Kiff
Megan Garibaldi, City Attorney Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney