505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE:
1. Appeals of decisions regarding administrative use permits, administrative design review, coastal development permits, conditional use permits, design review, interpretations, reasonable accommodation, temporary use permits and variances may be filed by the applicant or any other aggrieved property owner within three hundred feet of the subject property.
2. A CEQA determination in connection with the decisions described above are subject to Public Resources Code section 21151(c) and may be appealed by any person.
3. The appeal fee of $2,500.00 must accompany the appeal at submittal.
4. This form must be received by the City Clerk within 14 calendar days of the appealed decision or determination.
5. All information requested below must be provided. Attach additional pages if necessary.
6. Prior to completing this form you may wish to read Laguna Beach Municipal Code section
25.05.070, which pertains to appeals.
APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Email: [email protected]________ Name of Appellant: _Angelique Hoskins____________________Phone No: _(949) 494-3236_____ Address of Appellant: __511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, 92651___________________________ Address of Subject Property: __511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, 92651_____________________ Owner of Subject Property: _Angelique Hoskins_________________________________________ Board/Commission/Officer responsible for Decision Appealed: (Select One) θ Design Review/Board of Adjustment
θ Planning Commission
θ Other: (Explain)_Staff on behalf of the Director of Community Development_________________ Date of Decision/Hearing:__January 21, 2026______________________________ Appeal of: (Select One)
θ Approval
θ Denial
θ CEQA Determination (Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151(c)) θ Other: (Explain)_Hedge Height Claim determination_____________________________________ Doc ID: 591af012942e96ba79c082fa96a7167e1a3257d5
Attachment 2
29 505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771 Generally Describe:
The type of permit, relief or action originally sought for the subject property:______________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ REASON FOR THE APPEAL:
___________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. ____________________________________________________________________Date____________ (Signature of Appellant)
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING : Continuances may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Either the applicant (owner of the subject property or his/her designee) or the appellant may request a continuance at or, preferably, before the time of the public hearing. If, no later than the Wednesday prior to the public hearing, the applicant submits a written request accompanied by $684 to cover the cost of renoticing, the City staff has the authority to continue the hearing, if in the judgement of the staff, there is no valid or legal reason not to continue the hearing. Such requests are to be submitted to the City Clerk.
Appeal Received By: __________________
Date Filed: __________________________
Appeal Fee: _________________________
Date of Hearing: ______________________
Please see appeal letter from Appellant's attorney, Bryan Zuetel, dated 02/04/2026, attached and incorporated by reference.
Please see appeal letter from Appellant's attorney, Bryan Zuetel, dated 02/04/2026, attached and incorporated by reference.
02 / 11 / 2026
30 Doc ID: 591af012942e96ba79c082fa96a7167e1a3257d5
February 4, 2026
City of Laguna Beach
City Council
c/o Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
505 Forest Ave.
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
[email protected]
Re: Appeal Re: Hedge Height Claim: HHC-2025-1254
511 Brooks Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Dear City Clerk:
On behalf of Lique Hoskins, the owner of 511 Brooks Street, this letter serves as her Notice of Appeal from the January 21, 2026, Hearing Notes and Findings and the resulting decision in Hedge Height Claim HHC 2025-1254 issued by the Director of Community Development (the “Director”). Ms. Hoskins respectfully requests that the City Council review the decision and either reverse it or remand the matter for further findings, for the reasons set forth below.
I. Standard of Review Under LBMC § 25.05.070
Ms. Hoskins acknowledges that the City Council’s review under LBMC § 25.05.070 is limited.
The Council may consider only the grounds stated in this notice of appeal and the evidence that was before the Director. It may not conduct a de novo hearing or reweigh the evidence but instead must determine whether the Director proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. The decision is presumed reasonable and valid, and Ms. Hoskins bears the burden of overcoming that presumption.
Consistent with that standard, this appeal relies exclusively on LBMC Chapter 12.14 (Hedge Height Limitations) and the existing administrative record, including the January 21, 2026, Hearing Notes and Findings and their attachments for HHC 2025-1254.
II. Grounds for Appeal (LBMC § 25.05.070)
Pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070, Ms. Hoskins limits this appeal to the four grounds set forth below, each based solely on the existing record. For each of these reasons, the decision is not supported by substantial evidence and reflects a failure to proceed in the manner required by law. 31 City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Ground 1 – Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and the Claimant’s Burden of Proof In the decision, the Director concludes that the subject hedge “obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the claimant’s rear yard” and, based on that conclusion, determines that the vegetation is non-conforming and must be trimmed. That conclusion rests on a misapplication of LBMC Chapter 12.14 and a failure to apply both the ordinance’s definition of “view” and its burden-of-proof requirements to the evidence presented.
LBMC section 12.14.030 defines a protected “view” as a “vista of features, including, but not limited to, bodies of water, beaches, coastline, islands, skylines, ridges, hillside terrain, canyons, geologic features and landmarks,” and expressly states that “[t]he term ‘view’ does not mean an unobstructed panorama of these features.” The ordinance therefore draws a clear distinction between a legally protected vista and a broader expectation of an unobstructed or newly created ocean panorama.
The findings do not meaningfully apply that distinction. They adopt the claimant’s description of an “ocean horizon” obstruction without identifying what specific pre-existing vista qualifies as a protected “view,” from what vantage point in the rear yard, or how that alleged view fits within the ordinance’s definition rather than reflecting a desire for a broader panoramic outlook that the ordinance does not protect. This issue is particularly significant here because the Calverts’ remodel was ongoing at the relevant time, and the claim was framed in terms of anticipated views from a newly reconfigured home rather than views that existed before construction.
The treatment of the claimant’s burden of proof further underscores the problem. LBMC section
12.14.060(e) places the burden squarely on the claimant to establish that hedges “constitute a safety hazard and/or obstruct views from or sunlight to the complainant’s property.” At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins, through counsel, specifically argued that the claimant failed to meet that burden for several reasons, including:
1. The claim relied on prospective views from an in-construction residence rather than any existing, legally protected view.
2. The Calverts’ property had an ocean view in its prior configuration, which they chose to alter through their remodel.
3. The trees forming the alleged hedge have been in the same location for more than 33 years and are consistent with approved 1999 landscaping plans.
4. The hedge has been maintained at the same height for decades, aside from a one-time accidental over-cutting by the gardener; and
5. The Calverts did not submit photographs from 2019 or 2020 when they began residing at and later purchased the property to establish what view existed at that time. 32 City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Counsel also emphasized that any potential ocean view from the Calvert property is now significantly constrained by the roofline of the approved ADU immediately to the south, which independently blocks the sightline regardless of the hedge.
These points went directly to whether the claimant had shown that a qualifying view ever existed within the meaning of Chapter 12.14, and whether any alleged obstruction was attributable to the hedge rather than to the Calverts’ design choices or neighboring structures. The written findings, however, do not meaningfully address these arguments. They do not identify a specific preexisting vista that satisfies the ordinance definition of “view,” do not distinguish between a protected vista and a broader panoramic view now sought after the remodel, and do not explain how the evidence shows that the hedge—rather than other acknowledged obstructions—caused any loss of a protected view. Instead, the findings treat the phrase “ocean horizon” as sufficient on its own, effectively presuming the existence and obstruction of a protected view without demonstrating that the claimant met the burden imposed by LBMC sections 12.14.030 and
12.14.060(e).
For these reasons, Ms. Hoskins contends that the Director did not proceed in the manner required by law and that the conclusion that a qualifying view is obstructed is not supported by substantial evidence.
Ground 2 – Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions
LBMC section 12.14.050 specifies what a hedge height claim must include and how it must be supported. The ordinance requires, among other things, “documented and dated photographic prints” and written testimony that “must show the extent to which the view and/or sunlight access has been obstructed by trees and/or vegetation.” The ordinance’s structure makes clear that generalized assertions of diminished views are insufficient; the claimant must provide objective, time-anchored evidence showing the extent of obstruction caused by the hedges at issue.
Here, the claimant’s June 12, 2025, letter to the City states that the Calverts received design review approval for their remodel in October 2023 and that, after that approval, Ms. Hoskins “stopped trimming her trees,” which “have now blocked our entire ocean view.” The letter characterizes the hedge as a “Spite Fence” and accuses Ms. Hoskins of malicious intent, while also acknowledging that the Calverts “chose to purchase this home” in part because of an existing ocean view. Although the letter references “attached photos dated July 12, 2022,” it does not include photographs from 2019 or 2020 showing the baseline view at the time the Calverts began living at or purchased the property.
At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins’ counsel specifically argued that the claim did not meet Chapter
12.14’s evidentiary requirements because not all photographs were dated, none documented the view at the time of purchase, and the images provided did not isolate the effect of the hedge from other obstructions in the view corridor, including the approved ADU and other vegetation beyond Ms. Hoskins’ property line. Those objections went directly to whether the evidence 33 City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ satisfied section 12.14.050(a)’s requirement that it “show the extent” of hedge-caused obstruction.
While the Hearing Notes reflect that staff reviewed the submitted materials and note Ms.
Hoskins’ objection that “the claim fails to meet photo documentation requirements,” the written findings do not resolve that issue. The decision does not identify which photographs were relied upon, whether they are dated as required, or how they demonstrate the extent of obstruction attributable specifically to the hedge. Instead, the findings refer to “submitted photographs” and proceed to the conclusion that the vegetation obstructs the ocean horizon.
Because the decision does not explain how the claimant’s submissions satisfy the evidentiary requirements of LBMC section 12.14.050, it does not demonstrate that the Director proceeded in the manner required by law, and the conclusion reached is not supported by evidence in the existing record.
Ground 3 – Failure to Establish Hedge-Specific Causation as Required by LBMC §
12.14.070.
LBMC section 12.14.070(c) requires a determination that “the hedges that are the subject of the hedge height claim…obstruct views from or sunlight to the property of the complainant.” This requires a finding of hedge-specific causation that the vegetation at issue, rather than other features, is responsible for the alleged obstruction.
Causation was a central issue at the hearing. The record reflects extensive discussion of other significant obstructions in the same sightline, including the roofline of the approved ADU immediately to the south and additional trees beyond Ms. Hoskins’ property. Ms. Hoskins’ counsel argued that these features independently block or materially limit any ocean view from the Calverts’ rear yard and therefore break the causal link between the hedge and the alleged obstruction.
Although the findings acknowledge the existence of the neighboring ADU and even reference its apex in setting a permitted hedge height, they do not perform the analysis required by Chapter
12.14. The decision does not evaluate how the hedge affects the view compared to the ADU or other vegetation, nor does it specify whether the hedge alone causes the obstruction.
Additionally, it lacks an explanation for why only the hedge is considered problematic. The suggestion that the hedge obstructs the view fails to consider several significant barriers that have already been acknowledged.
Where multiple obstructions are documented in the record, a conclusory finding that the hedge obstructs the view, without an analysis isolating its effect, does not constitute substantial evidence of hedge-specific causation. For that reason, the decision fails to demonstrate compliance with LBMC section 12.14.070(c).
Ground 4 – Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits
34 City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ LBMC section 12.14.020 expressly recognizes that hedges provide legitimate and significant benefits, including privacy and buffering, environmental functions such as wind screening and habitat, and aesthetic and economic benefits that help blend and reduce the visual mass of development. Chapter 12.14 reflects a legislative intent to balance view protection against these competing interests.
The record shows that the subject hedge has existed in the same general location for more than 33 years, consistent with historic landscaping plans, and forms part of the established side-yard boundary between the properties. At the hearing, Ms. Hoskins’ counsel specifically raised the hedge’s long-standing nature, consistent maintenance, privacy and screening function, and the associated reliance interests.
The written findings, however, do not address any of these factors. They do not acknowledge the hedge’s longevity, its established role in providing privacy and screening, particularly in light of the neighboring ADU’s use as a short-term vacation rental during summer months or the increased privacy loss resulting from the Calverts’ raised rear porch. Nor do the findings address the environmental and aesthetic benefits that Chapter 12.14 expressly directs the City to consider. Instead, the analysis focuses exclusively on the asserted view impact, without demonstrating that the balancing framework required by Chapter 12.14 was applied at all.
By ordering alteration of long-established landscaping to accommodate a neighboring owner’s remodel without findings showing that these ordinance-recognized interests were considered, the decision fails to demonstrate that the Director proceeded in the manner required by law.
III. Requested Relief
Within the limited scope of review prescribed by LBMC § 25.05.070 and based solely on the existing administrative record, Ms. Hoskins respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the January 21, 2026, decision in Hedge Height Claim HHC 2025-1254 because the Director: 1) misapplied the definition of “view” and the claimant’s burden of proof under LBMC Chapter
12.14; 2) failed to apply the evidentiary standards of LBMC section 12.14.050; 3) did not establish hedge-specific causation as required by LBMC section 12.14.070; and 4) failed to demonstrate that long-standing landscaping and ordinance-recognized hedge benefits were considered.
In the alternative, if the City Council determines that reversal is not warranted, Ms. Hoskins requests that the matter be remanded to the Director of Community Development with instructions to expressly apply the ordinance to the existing record, including: 1) identifying the specific dated photographic and testimonial evidence relied upon and explaining how it demonstrates hedge-caused obstruction; 2) analyzing the impact of other acknowledged obstructions in the view corridor, including the neighboring ADU; and 3) making findings that show the balancing framework required by Chapter 12.14 including long-standing reliance interests and recognized hedge benefits has been applied. 35 City of Laguna Beach, City Clerk
February 4, 2026
______________________________________________________________________________ Ms. Hoskins respectfully looks forward to the City Council’s consideration of this appeal and its decision based on the existing administrative record.
Regards,
Bryan Zuetel
Bryan Zuetel
ZUETEL LAW GROUP
Copy to: Cheryl Baldridge, Deputy City Clerk: [email protected] Jamee Danihels, Accounting Technician: [email protected] John Ciampa, Contract Planner: [email protected] 36