RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
SUSTAINING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF HEDGE HEIGHT
CLAIM 25-1254 FOR HEDGE HEIGHT VIOLATIONS ON THE
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 511 BROOKS STREET IN THE R-1,
RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304
WHEREAS, the property owners, Jeff and Amy Calvert (“Claimant”)1, of 527 Brooks Street (the “Claimant’s Property”), submitted Hedge Height Claim (“HHC”) 25-1254 seeking a reduction in the height of vegetation located within the side yard of the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street (the “Vegetation Owner’s Property”) located in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Chapter 12.14 (the “Claim”); and WHEREAS, on January 21, 2026, the Director of Community Development Designee (“Designee”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Claim. After receiving input from staff, the Claimant, and public comments, the Designee determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim subject to the conditions set forth in the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report, and including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Designee Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2026, Angelique Hoskins (“Appellant”) of 511 Brooks Street, filed an appeal of the Designee Approval (“Appeal”); and 1 The Claimant is represented by Larry Nokes, who is within the definition of Claimant.
Attachment 1
15 -2- Reso. #
WHEREAS, public notice was duly provided to consider the appeal of the Claim at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065; and WHEREAS, on March 24, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the appeal and continued the hearing to the April 28, 2026 City Council meeting; and WHEREAS, on April 28, 2026, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal and carefully considered the oral and documentary evidence and arguments presented.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH DOES RESOLVE:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for the Appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:
1. ““Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and Claimant’s Burden of Proof” City Council’s Response
The appeal contention is not supported by the record. Substantial evidence demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the burden of proof required under LBMC §12.14.060(e), which requires the complainant to show that the subject hedge obstructs views from the property.
The Claimant provided photographic documentation and testimony consistent with the submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050(a) and (c), demonstrating the extent of the view obstruction. This evidence was corroborated through staff site visits to both properties, as well as photographs and testimony presented at the public hearing. Collectively, the record establishes that the subject hedge, as currently maintained, obstructs a coastal view from the Claimant’s rear yard. 16 -3- Reso. #
The Hearing Officer’s findings are also consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. Specifically, the record supports that: (1) the vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge” pursuant to LBMC §12.14.030; (2) the hedge is located within the side yard; and (3) the hedge obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property. These findings directly address the required criteria and support the determination that the Claimant met the applicable burden of proof.
With respect to the assertion that the observed view limitation may result from the Claimant’s design changes or other structures, the Municipal Code does not require the Claimant to demonstrate that the hedge is the sole source of obstruction. Rather, LBMC §12.14.060(e) requires only that the hedge obstruct views. The evidence in the record demonstrates that the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction, even where other elements within the view corridor, including structures and vegetation, may also be present.
Further, LBMC Chapter 12.14 expressly recognizes that views provide significant and tangible benefits, including contributions to property value and establishes a process to resolve conflicts where vegetation forming hedges adversely impacts views. The regulations do not distinguish between pre-existing views and those that may be newly created – in this case, views that were allegedly created prior to 2022 through an accidental over-cutting of the hedge by the gardener; therefore, it is appropriate to evaluate the impact of the subject hedge on the abutting property based on existing site conditions at the time of the claim.
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.030, the definition of “view” includes features such as “bodies of water.” In this case, the findings identify the impacted feature as the ocean horizon.
This characterization does not imply, nor was it interpreted to require, an unobstructed panoramic view. As reflected in the record, other background obstructions, including a recently constructed 17 -4- Reso. #
ADU and additional vegetation within the view corridor were considered in the analysis. These factors informed the determination that a maximum hedge height of 11 feet is appropriate to balance view preservation with the continued benefits of the hedge.
Moreover, although LBMC Chapter 25.14 (Hedge Height Limitations) does not include a definition of a panoramic view, LBMC Chapter 25.16 (View Preservation and Restoration), which similarly addresses view and sunlight disputes related to vegetation, defines “panoramic view” as follows: “an unobstructed and wide view of an extensive area in all directions related to the view in question.” (LBMC §12.16.020). Because a definition is not a part of LBMC Chapter 25.14, it is left to the decision-maker to determine if the impact merely infringes on an otherwise panoramic vista of a view, which is not protected under the Hedge Height Claim process.2 The definition in LBMC Chapter 25.16 is instructive in that it is consistent with the common usage of the term “panorama” or “panoramic.”34 Here, the viewshed is a corridor view in a single direction to the southwest and does not reasonably qualify as “panoramic” (for example, a broad, multi-directional view such as a 180-degree vista). Further, even if the view were considered panoramic, the evidentiary record includes photographs showing that the hedge eliminates nearly all of the oceanhorizon view from the Claimant’s backyard. The loss of more than three-quarters of the view is not a mere infringement on an otherwise unobstructed panoramic view. 2 Although the Appellant implies that the view impact may be an impact to a “broader panoramic view” that is not protected by the Hedge Height Claim process, the Appeal does not put forward any arguments for why the view may be panoramic. As indicated above, in its evaluation of this appeal, the City Council shall presume that the decision or determination made by the Designee was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion; and the appellant shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence presented. 3 “An unobstructed or complete view of an area in every direction.” “Panorama Definition & Meaning.” MerriamWebster. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panorama. 4 “A view of a wide area.” “Panorama Definition.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/panorama 18 -5- Reso. #
Accordingly, the Hearing Officer’s decision reflects a reasoned application of the Municipal Code, is supported by substantial evidence in the record, and demonstrates that the Claimant met the burden of proof under LBMC §12.14.060(e).
2. “Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions” City Council’s Response
The record demonstrates that the Claimant satisfied the evidentiary submittal requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the Hearing Officer appropriately relied on substantial evidence in making the determination.
The Claimant submitted a Hedge Height Claim application that included all required documentation necessary to deem the application complete, in accordance with LBMC §12.14.050. The submittal included a written description of the alleged view obstruction and photographic evidence demonstrating the extent of the obstruction, as required by §12.14.050(a) and (c). Photo documentation in the record is dated February 5, 2022; July 12, 2022; October 26, 2023; and March 11, 2024. Additional photographs documenting the hedge-related view obstruction are dated September 26, 2024; October 13, 2024; and November 27, 2024. There are also photographs dated March 28, May 23, and “today,” which are reasonably interpreted as having been taken in 2025, the year the application was submitted. Collectively, these materials provide objective and dated visual evidence of the extent and progression of the hedge’s impact on the Claimant’s view.
Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, LBMC §12.14.050 does not require baseline documentation from the time of property purchase, nor does it require the Claimant to isolate the hedge as the sole source of view obstruction. Rather, the Code requires evidence demonstrating 19 -6- Reso. #
“the extent to which the view…has been obstructed by trees and/or vegetation.” This standard was met through the submitted photographic evidence, written materials, and corroborating testimony.
In formulating the determination, the Designee considered the entirety of the administrative record, including the dated photographs, the written application materials, construction plans for the recently approved ADU at 503 Brooks Street, and observations from site visits to both the Claimant’s and Vegetation Owner’s properties. The Hearing Officer also considered testimony and evidence presented at the public hearing.
The findings are not based on generalized assertions, but rather on specific evidence in the record demonstrating that the subject vegetation meets the definition of a “hedge,” is located within a side yard, and obstructs a view from the Claimant’s property, consistent with the evaluation criteria set forth in LBMC §12.14.070. The evidence further demonstrates that, while other elements such as nearby structures and vegetation exist within the view corridor, the subject hedge independently contributes to the obstruction. The Municipal Code does not require that the hedge be the sole cause of the obstruction, only that it obstructs a view, as required under LBMC §12.14.060(e).
Accordingly, the record shows that the City properly applied the evidentiary requirements of LBMC §12.14.050 and that the determination is supported by substantial evidence.
3. “Failure to Establish Hedge-Specific Causation as Required by LBMC § 12.14.070” City Council’s Response
LBMC §12.14.070(c) requires a determination that the subject hedge obstructs a view; it does not require the City to isolate the hedge as the sole source of obstruction or to quantify the relative contribution of all elements within the view corridor. 20 -7- Reso. #
The administrative record contains substantial evidence demonstrating that the hedge itself contributes to the obstruction. Photographs from 2022 through 2025 document the ocean view from the Claimant’s property over time, including periods when the hedge was maintained at a lower height and when it subsequently increased in height. This photographic history allows for comparison of view conditions and demonstrates that the hedge’s increased height corresponds with increased obstruction of the ocean horizon.
The record also reflects consideration of other potential obstructions. The ADU at 503 Brooks Street, constructed in 2024, is shown in photographic evidence dated March 11, 2024 (prior to framing) and September 26, 2024 (post-roof installation), confirming that it obstructs a portion of the blue water view. However, the same photographic evidence demonstrates that the hedge independently obstructs the ocean horizon.
The findings further reflect that these background obstructions were taken into account in establishing the required hedge height of 11 feet. Specifically, a lower hedge height would not yield additional view restoration due to the presence of the ADU roofline and other vegetation.
This demonstrates that the Designee did not rely on a conclusory determination but rather evaluated the hedge’s specific impact within the broader context of existing site conditions.
4. “Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits”
City Council’s Response
The Municipal Code requires consideration of competing interests but does not require that long-standing landscaping or hedge benefits preclude a finding of view obstruction or the imposition of a remedy.
21 -8- Reso. #
As stated in the hearing notes, on January 15, 2026, the Designee conducted site visits to both the Vegetation Owner’s and Claimant’s properties. Pursuant to LBMC Chapter
25.50.012(B)(3), hedges located within a side yard setback are generally limited to a height of 6 feet. The subject hedge was measured at over 13 feet in height. While hedges may exceed this height absent a claim, they become subject to review under Chapter 12.14 when a hedge height claim is filed. The Appellant does not dispute that the vegetation meets the definition of a hedge and is therefore subject to these provisions.
Consistent with LBMC §12.14.010 and §12.14.020, the Designee considered both the benefits of hedges, including privacy, aesthetics, and environmental value, and the adverse impact on views. The record reflects that the hedge’s presence, function, and surrounding site conditions were evaluated through site visits, photographic evidence, and testimony.
Based on the findings and evidence, the hedge was determined to obstruct the ocean view from the Claimant’s property. In balancing the competing interests, the Designee did not require reduction to the maximum allowable fence height of 6 feet but instead established a modified height of 11 feet, approximately two feet below its measured height at the time of inspection. This outcome reflects a reasonable balancing of the Vegetation Owner’s interest in maintaining the hedge with the Claimant’s protected interest in view preservation, consistent with the intent and purpose of LBMC Chapter 12.14. Accordingly, the record demonstrates that the required balancing framework was applied and that the determination appropriately considered both the benefits of the hedge and its impact on the Claimant’s view.
SECTION 3. The City Council hereby makes the following findings and facts supporting findings for HHC 25-1254:
22 -9- Reso. #
Finding No. 1: The claimant has provided evidence of a cooperative attempt at initial communication to discuss concernsrelated to views and/or sunlight obstruction, and such attempts have failed.
Documentation submitted by the claimant with the hedge height claim application demonstrates written communication dated September 29, 2024; December 13, 2024; and May 31, 2025. These efforts did not result in resolution.
Finding No. 2: The vegetation at issue is not exempt from the provisions of this chapter pursuant to Section 12.14.040.
The subject vegetation: (1) lies within 100 feet of the claimant’s property; (2) is not the same vegetation acted upon by the same claimant or subsequent owner(s) of the claimant’s property; (3) is not City-maintained vegetation; (4) is not designated as a City Heritage Tree; and (5) is not approved under a landscaping or design review approval for which a maximum height has been established. As such, the subject vegetation is not exempt from the provisions of Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) Chapter 12.14.
Finding No. 3: Is the subject vegetation consistent with the City’s definition of a hedge pursuant to Section 12.14.030(b)?
The subject vegetation is continuous and dense in form and meets the definition of a hedge pursuant to LBMC Section 12.14.030(b).
Finding No. 4: Does the subject vegetation appear to obstruct views and/or sunlight with respect to the claimant’s property?
The subject vegetation obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the claimant’s rear yard.
Finding No. 5: Does the subject vegetation appear to represent a safety concern? No. The height of the subject vegetation does not create a view obstruction with respect to 23 -10- Reso. #
vehicular or pedestrian ingress or egress from the claimant’s property. As such, the City Council finds that the vegetation subject to the claim is not a safety concern.
Finding No. 6: Is the subject vegetation within City yard setback areas? Yes. The subject vegetation is located within the required side yard setback area.
Finding No. 7: Is the subject vegetation higher than the pertinent setback height restrictions?
Portions of the subject hedge were measured at thirteen (13) feet, three (3) inches in height.
This exceeds the maximum allowable height of six (6) feet within the side yard setback pursuant to LBMC Section 25.50.012(B)(3).
Finding No. 8: Should the hedge be limited in height to the pertinent height restriction or is a different height more appropriate?
The City Council finds that a height different from the maximum allowable six (6) feet is appropriate to address the documented view obstruction while allowing reasonable continued use of the vegetation. Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council finds that limiting the hedge to a maximum height ranging from ten (10) to eleven (11) feet, measured from existing grade, to eliminate the obstruction of ocean view within the side yard setback area is appropriate.
SECTION 4. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the action consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees except for forestry and agricultural purposes. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment.
Class 4 applies because the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation. 24 -11- Reso. #
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply.
The property subject to the Hedge Height Claim does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the site is fully developed with an existing single-family residence and is adjacent to developed residential properties and streets. The City’s environmentally sensitive area maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate vicinity, and there are no mapped watercourses on the subject site. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place over time in that the proposed action consists of maintaining overgrown vegetation through the imposition of a maximum height limit and does not require the removal of any vegetation. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment in that there are no historic resources or heritage trees on the site, or any other concerns with regards to the project site. There will be no damage to scenic resources, including trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway in that the vegetation subject to the Hedge Height Claim is not adjacent to or near a designated state scenic highway, with the closest officially designated state scenic highway located near Anaheim.
5 The Project is not located on a hazardous
waste site or any other site included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5. The Project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined by CEQA in that there is no historic resource on the site or immediately adjacent to the site.
Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
SECTION 5. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the determination 5 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa 25 -12- Reso. #
on the Claim, as reflected in the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report for HHC 25-1254, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Hearing Notes and Findings and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference, subject to the standard conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 6. In accordance with the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report for HHC 25-1254, the corrective action shall be completed within thirty (30) calendar days of the effective date of this decision. Trimming shall occur at a minimum interval of every three (3) months and shall be maintained and trimmed at a frequency to eliminate ocean view obstruction from the claimant’s property at 527 Brooks Street to the ocean. Should the hedge exceed the approved height in the future, the claimant may request Code Enforcement action without the need to file a subsequent hedge height claim.
ADOPTED this 28th day of April, 2026.
Mark Orgill, Mayor
ATTEST:
Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
26 -13- Reso. #
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 26.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on April 28, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
27 EXHIBIT A
RESOLUTION NO. 26.XXX
(CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL)
Standard Conditions – Community Development Department
1. The Claimant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director, City Planner, or Designee. The City shall promptly notify the Claimant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
2. The Claimant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.
3. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlement(s) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.
4. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded. 28