STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:
April 28, 2026
APPEALS
B
SUBJECT: 511 BROOKS STREET: APPEAL OF APPROVAL OF HEDGE HEIGHT CLAIM 25-1254 FOR HEDGE HEIGHT VIOLATIONS IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION UNDER THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15304 (CLASS 4)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Continue to conduct the public hearing that was opened at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting, including receiving an updated staff report and taking public testimony and evidence relating to the consideration of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254, and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under Section 15304 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “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,” upholding the Designee’s conditional approval of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254 and finding the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.
SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
The property owners, Jeff and Amy Calvert1 (“Claimant”), of 527 Brooks Street (the “Claimant’s Property”) (see aerial map included as Figure 2) 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. The Claimant asserts that the subject vegetation obstructs views of the ocean horizon from the Claimant’s Property.
On January 21, 2026, the Director of Community Development’s designee (“Designee”) held a duly noticed public hearing to evaluate a claim that vegetation located in the side yard of the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street obstructs ocean views from the subject Property (the “Claim”). After carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence presented by staff, the Claimant, and members of the public, the Designee determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim subject to the conditions set forth in the staff report, and a finding that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (the “Approval”). (The January 21, 2026 Hearing Notes and Findings is attached as Attachment 4.)
1 The Claimant’s agent is Larry Nokes, who is within the definition of Claimant.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 1: “Before” and “After” photographs provided with Claimants’ submitted application materials for HHC 25-1254, annotated to show approximate width of the subject vegetation On February 4, 2026, Angelique Hoskins3 (“Appellant”), of 511 Brooks Street, filed an appeal of the Approval (the “Appeal”) (Attachment 2.) The Appeal contests all the Designee’s determinations and findings in favor of the Claim for the following reasons, as summarized by staff:
3 The Appellant’s agent is Bryan Zuetel who is within the definition of Appellant.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
1. The decision does not clearly identify a qualifying, pre-existing view protected under City rules and instead relies on a general claim of an “ocean horizon” view. It also appears to consider views created by a recent remodel rather than those that existed before and does not show that the claimant met the required burden of proof.
2. The Appellant contends that the claim was not supported by the required dated photographs and documentation showing how much the hedge blocks the view. The evidence provided does not clearly establish baseline conditions or separate the hedge’s impact from other view obstructions, such as an accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) and other vegetation.
3. The decision does not adequately demonstrate that the hedge itself is responsible for the view obstruction, especially given the presence of other factors such as nearby structures and vegetation that may also limit the view.
4. The Appellant states that the decision did not properly consider the hedge’s long-standing presence, its benefits, such as privacy and screening, or balance these factors against the claimed view impact, as required by City regulations.
Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100-foot radius of the Claimant’s Property, respectively, posted on the Vegetation Owner’s Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 3). The item was previously continued from the March 24, 2026 City Council meeting to this April 28, 2026 City Council meeting.
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, decisions of the Director of Community Development, or Designee, may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
The City Council may uphold, reverse, or remand any appealed decision. (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution that sets forth in writing the findings relied on to conclude that the appealed decision was in error or an abuse of discretion.5 (LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).)
1. Hedge Height Claim
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(1) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for non-design review appeals, such as a hedge height claim. For that review, the City Council shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal and shall not be limited to the evidence that was presented to the Director of Community Development or Designee. The City Council shall exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to 5 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has “not proceeded in the manner required by law”; (2) the City “decision is not supported by the findings”; or (3) the “findings are not supported by the evidence.” (Civil Code § 1094.5.) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
the evidence presented at its hearing. Nevertheless, there shall be a presumption 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.
In its consideration of the Designee’s approval of HHC 25-1254, the City Council is not limited to either the evidence in the record or the deliberations of the Designee. The Claimant or members of the public may present new evidence for the City Council’s consideration, and the City Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are listed below.
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee Approval, and finding the approval of the Claim categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the Designee approval and finding the approval of the Claim categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;
3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Designee Approval, with findings in support of overturning the Designee Approval and denying the Claim; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding HHC 25-1254 to the Director of Community Development or Designee, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Director of Community Development or Designee.
DISCUSSION
The Designee held one public hearing on January 21, 2026, and determined that corrective action was required and approved the Claim. A summary of the public hearing is set forth below.7 A. January 21, 2026 Hedge Height Claim Hearing
7 The summaries and charts within this staff report are not exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 2: Aerial View of Claimant’s Property (527 Brooks Street) and Vegetation Owner’s Property (511 Brooks Street) highlighted in yellow and red, respectively
1. Staff Presentation
Staff provided an overview of the administrative hearing process and the subject Claim, which involves a hedge height claim filed by the owner of 527 Brooks Street, alleging that vegetation located on the adjacent property at 511 Brooks Street obstructs ocean views from the Claimant’s property. Staff and Brenda Wisneski, as Designee, conducted site visits to both the Claimant’s and Vegetation Owner’s properties. She also reviewed the application materials and correspondence submitted by both parties. Based on her evaluation, she confirmed that the Claim is eligible, the vegetation qualifies as a hedge, and the hedge is located in the Vegetation Owner’s side yard, where it obstructs the ocean view from the rear of the Claimant’s property. Site visit photographs were presented at the hearing. These included images documenting the existing view conditions, as well as the height and density of the subject Eugenia hedge located within the side yard setback. Comparative “before and after” photographs were also provided to APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
illustrate the extent to which the hedge obstructs the ocean view from the rear yard of the Claimant’s property.
2. Claimant Presentation
Mrs. Calvert, the Claimant, stated that they purchased the property at 527 Brooks Street in April 2020, and have resided there since 2019. She explained that her proposed addition and remodel project went through the City’s Design Review Board (“DRB”) process between 2019 and 2024. During that time, the neighboring hedge was maintained at a lower height, allowing ocean views from her backyard. After the project received DRB approval, the hedge was no longer trimmed to that level and has since grown to obstruct those views. The Claimant also noted that communication with the neighbor was cordial prior to project approval but ceased afterward. She stated that the hedge’s growth had negatively impacted the Claimant’s Property and requested that it be reduced to approximately fence height (about six feet) to restore the prior ocean view.
3. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, two (2) individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:
Commenter Summary of Comment
Larry Nokes A representative of the Claimant stated that he was involved in developing the City’s Hedge Height Claim Ordinance. He described the subject hedge as vegetation growing above a fence in the side yard that blocks ocean views from the Claimant’s property. He stated that the hedge serves no clear purpose in the setback area and functions as an extension of the fence, and he supported reducing its height to approximately six feet.
Bryan Zuetel A representative of the Vegetation Owner argued that the Claim is based on a future or anticipated view rather than an existing one, and therefore, does not meet the City’s requirements. He stated that there is no ocean view from the backyard at ground level and suggested that any prior view may have resulted from a one-time over-trimming of the hedge. He also noted that a nearby ADU and other off-site trees contribute to blocking the view. The representative further stated that the Claimant purchased the property with knowledge of existing conditions, that the hedge had been maintained at a consistent height for over 25 years, and that the submitted photos did not meet the City’s documentation requirements because not all are dated. He added that any required trimming should account for the height of the nearby ADU and comply with applicable limits. He concluded by emphasizing the property owner’s right to maintain vegetation for privacy, aesthetic, and environmental purposes.
4. Designee Determination Approving the Claim
The Designee made the finding that the subject vegetation is non-conforming and is subject to corrective action, thereby approving the Claim, which includes the conditions of approval provided within the Hearing Notes and Findings staff report (Attachment 4). Specifically, the Vegetation Owner (511 Brooks Street) shall trim the subject hedge to a height of ten (10) feet and thereafter shall maintain the height between ten APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
(10) to eleven (11) feet as measured from existing grade to eliminate the obstruction of ocean view within the required side yard setback adjacent to 527 Brooks Street.
RESPONSES TO ISSUES RAISED ON APPEAL
As noted above, the City received an Appeal of the Designee’s decision (Attachment 2). As indicated under Standards of Review, in the City Council’s review of non-design review appeals, such as a hedge height claim, the Council shall conduct a de novo review of the underlying application and shall not be limited to the grounds stated for the appeal, nor is the Council limited to the evidence that was presented to the Designee. Accordingly, in its consideration of the Designee’s approval of HHC 25-1254, the Council is free to deliberate without being limited to the Designee’s findings – in other words, a de novo hearing.
Below are the grounds for the Appeal and City staff’s response.
1. “Misapplication of the Definition of “View” and Claimant’s Burden of Proof” In short, the Appellant contends the decision misapplies LBMC Chapter 12.14 by failing to identify a specific pre-existing “view” that qualifies under LBMC §12.14.030 and instead treating a generalized “ocean horizon” as sufficient without analysis. It does not distinguish between a protected vista and an unprotected expectation of a broader panoramic outlook, and it relies on prospective views associated with the claimant’s remodel rather than established conditions. The findings further fail to demonstrate that the claimant satisfied the burden of proof under LBMC §12.14.060(e), particularly in light of evidence suggesting that any view limitation may result from the claimant’s design changes or other structures rather than the hedge.
Staff’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.
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, APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
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 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 unobstructed panoramic vista of a view, which is not protected under the Hedge Height Claim process.9 The definition in LBMC Chapter 25.16 is instructive in that it is consistent with the common usage of the term “panorama” or “panoramic.”1011 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, assuming for the sake of argument that the view was considered panoramic, the evidentiary record includes photographs showing that the hedge eliminates nearly all of the ocean-horizon 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 but fundamentally changes the view.
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).
9 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. 10 “An unobstructed or complete view of an area in every direction.” “Panorama Definition & Meaning.” Merriam-Webster.
Accessed March 29, 2026. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/panorama. 11 “A view of a wide area.” “Panorama Definition.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed March 29, 2026. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/panorama APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
2. “Failure to Apply LBMC Evidence Requirements to the Claimant’s Submissions” In short, the Appellant contends the decision does not demonstrate compliance with LBMC §12.14.050, which requires objective, dated photographic and written evidence showing the extent of hedge-caused obstruction. Additionally, the Appellant states the record lacks adequate baseline documentation from the time of purchase and does not isolate the hedge’s impact from other obstructions. The findings rely on generalized assertions of view loss without identifying which evidence was used or explaining how it satisfies the ordinance’s evidentiary standards.
Staff’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 “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).
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
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” In short, the Appellant contends that the findings do not satisfy LBMC §12.14.070(c), which requires a determination that the hedge itself causes the alleged obstruction. Although other significant obstructions, such as a neighboring accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and off-site vegetation are acknowledged in the record, the decision does not analyze their relative impact or isolate the hedge’s contribution. Instead, it provides a conclusory determination without substantial evidence establishing hedge-specific causation.
Staff’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.
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.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 3: Image provided by Claimant, dated March 11, 2024 (before ADU) APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
Figure 4: Image provided by Claimant, dated September 26, 2024 (ADU in background)
4. “Failure to Consider Long-Standing Landscaping and Ordinance-Recognized Hedge Benefits” In short, the Appellant contends that the decision fails to apply the balancing framework required by LBMC §12.14.020. It does not consider the hedge’s long-standing presence, consistent maintenance, or its recognized benefits, including privacy, screening, and environmental and aesthetic value. Nor does it address reliance interests associated with established landscaping. By focusing exclusively on the asserted view impact, the findings omit the required evaluation of competing interests mandated by the ordinance.
Staff’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.
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.
APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
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.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution (Attachment 1) denying the appeal and sustaining the Designee’s approval of Hedge Height Claim 25-1254, and finding the Project exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15304.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action 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.
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 APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF HHC 25-1254 AT 511 BROOKS STREET April 28, 2026
highway located near Anaheim.15 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.
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 15-28)
2. Appeal (Pgs. 29-36)
3. City Council Appeal Public Notice (Pg. 37)
4. January 21, 2026 HHC (Hearing Notes and Findings) (Pgs. 38-93)
5. January 21, 2026 HHC Public Comments (Pgs. 94-102)
6. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 103-104)
Submitted By: Matthew Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:
Wendy Jung, Principal Planner Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community
Development
15 https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa