AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date
August 12, 2025
Appeal
A
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING FOR APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24-2550 FOR LANDSCAPING AT 276 CAJON STREET IN THE R-2 (RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM-DENSITY) ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Conduct the public hearing, including receiving a staff report and taking public testimony and all evidence relating to the consideration of Design Review 24-2550 and the California Environmental Quality Act exemption under section 15301 of the state CEQA Guidelines; and
2. Adopt a Resolution titled, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGUNA
BEACH, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE DESIGN REVIEW 24-2550 FOR LANDSCAPING AT 276 CAJON
STREET, AND FINDING THE ACTION CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO STATE CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15301,” upholding the Design Review Board’s conditional approval of Design Review 24-2550 and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA.
Appropriation: Fund Name:
Submitted By:
Matthew Schneider, Director of Community
Development
Approved:
Dave Kiff, City Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The property owner, Susan Shore (“Applicant”)1
, of 276 Cajon Street (the “Property”) (see aerial map
included as Figure 1) applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2550 for landscaping pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section 25.05.040 and Section 12.16.080(e)2 (the “Project”).
On March 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) adopted Resolution No. 24-2550 conditionally approving the Project by a 5-0 vote, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301. (The March 13, 2025 Staff Report and Resolution No. 24-2550, Public Comments, Plans, Minutes and Transcript, are attached as Attachments B-F, respectively.)
1 The Project’s agent is Steve Kawaratani, who is within the definition of Applicant. 2 The City of Laguna Beach (“City”) has adopted a View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Chapter 12.16). It allows a property owner to establish a protected or preserved view by filing for a record of views within the City. The City may issue a view restoration order and require restoration action upon determination of a significant view impairment. Vegetation that is approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits are established pursuant to the design review process are exempt from the City’s View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Section 12.16.080(e).) Attachment 3
14 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
On March 25, 2025, the neighboring property owner, Garth Jorgensen (“Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Board’s approval of the Project (the “Appeal”) (included as Attachment G). The Appellant contends that there was lack of timely meeting notice, lack of stakeholder engagement and participation, no compromise to appease both parties, no consideration of impacts to their property, including the lost ocean view of 20 years, that the vegetation is not needed to resolve privacy impacts, and the decision to maintain the height of the landscaping at the upper railing is vague.
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 May 20, 2025 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 Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment H). The public hearing was thereafter continued to August 12, 2025.
CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all design review permit decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.
In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution of denial. (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion3.” (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.” B. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(b) provides:
If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence. There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was 3 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.) 15 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.
Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2550, the City Council is limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board and cannot reweigh the evidence or exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence.
4 In other words, this is de novo review but not a de novo hearing. There is a presumption that the Board’s decision was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion, and the Appellant has the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., making it more likely than not).
If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.
Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 24-2550 subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans;5
in such event, remand is not required.
C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24- 2550, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15301;
2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24- 2550, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15301, 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 Board’s decision and denying DR 24-2550, with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial; or
4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding DR 24-2550 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.
DISCUSSION
A. The Board Approval (March 13, 2025 Public Hearing)
1. Staff Presentation
4 Attached to this staff report is the evidence presented at the March 13, 2025, public hearing discussed below. For reference, this includes the Board Staff Report and Resolution [Attachment B], Plans [Attachment C], Public Comments [Attachment D], Meeting Minutes [Attachment E], and Transcript [Attachment F]. 5 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration. 16 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
The Property is a 4,500 square-foot rectangular lot located on the inland side of North Coast Highway and near Hillcrest Drive (cross street). The site generally slopes up from the south property line to north property and contains a small beach cottage style single-family dwelling originally constructed in 1938. The subject Property is depicted below:
Figure 1. Aerial Map of 276 Cajon Street
In light of an open code enforcement case (CE 23-0262) for trees on the Property in violation of a record of view, recorded on October 21, 2021 by 280 Cajon Street (VPP 2020-7819) through the City’s View Preservation Process (Chapter 12.16) (Attachment I), Applicant has proposed to establish maximum heights and widths for the plantings for review and approval through the design review process by the Board. In accordance with LBMC Section 12.16.080(e), vegetation approved through the design review process in which vegetation height limits are established, are exempt from the View Preservation Process.
Accordingly, approval of a landscape plan by the Board that denotes maximum heights and widths supersedes a recorded view preservation plan. Applicant has requested to maintain landscaping at a certain height and width to maintain privacy while not obstructing the view from the upper level of 280 Cajon Street.
City staff recommended the Board deliberate on the proposed landscape dimensions and consider additional conditions of approval to address view equity for neighbors at 280 Cajon Street and privacy for the Applicant’s Property at 276 Cajon Street.
2. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
During the Board members’ review of the project, the Board members toured the Property and met with the Applicant, Project architect, and neighbors. Specifically, the Board members made the following ex parte disclosures:
17 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
Topic Discussion
Transcript Page
Nos.
[Commenter]
Board Member
Coveny
Met with the Applicant and went to the adjacent
properties.
p. 1 of 9.
Board Member
Gibbs
Met with the Applicant at the project site and walked over to 280 and 282 Cajon apartments and spoke with upstairs and downstairs tenants.
p. 1 of 9.
Board Chair
Gannon
Met with the Applicant and visited the property at 280
Cajon Street.
p. 1 of 9.
Chair Pro Tem
Thalman
Met with Applicant and neighbor (Appellant) at the
project site.
p. 1 of 9.
Board Member
Weil
Met with the Applicant at their home (276 Cajon Street) and met with one of the tenants of the 280 Cajon Street property.
p. 1 of 9.
3. Applicant Presentation
During the Applicant presentation, Steve Kawaratani spoke on behalf of the Applicant. His presentation is summarized below.
Applicant noted a letter from Larry Nokes, attorney for former Property owner, identifying the neighbor’s record of view photograph in comparison to the Applicant’s roof which shows a railing in the left corner and shows an ocean view. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Applicant also noted prior communications with former City staff who marked photos with white slashes to identify how City staff recommended the vegetation be maintained, including the height of the lemon tree (11 feet). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Applicant noted that a Board Member asked Applicant to cut the lemon tree 2 feet further (9 feet) and Applicant is agreeable to do so. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Applicant depicted the eight trees between 276 Cajon Street and 280 Cajon Street which form a privacy wall and noted prior communications with former City staff who marked photos with white slashes to identify how City staff recommended the vegetation be maintained (20 feet or 2 feet higher than the existing guard rail). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.)
Applicant depicted a slightly updated plan with names of the particular trees:
18 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
Applicant noted that Applicant was asked by Board Members to lower the Brachychiton tree to the point where it would not exceed the height of the existing ridge. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Applicant noted that the Applicant did not want to deny the ocean view for the neighbors but wanted to protect Applicant’s privacy in the master bedroom and ceremonial areas (fire pit and fire area). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.)
4. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, one individual, Garth Jorgensen (Appellant), provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below.
Appellant noted that he is one of the owners of the uphill properties, 280 Cajon Street, which he purchased in 2002. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) He has enjoyed the property for almost 25 years. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Appellant asked the Board to keep the trees at the heights documented in the view preservation record of view approved by the City on March 9, 2021. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.)
Appellant stated that he has been maintaining the trees with the downhill neighbors for the better part of 20 years with various owners of the Property and that, for most of the 20 years, the height of the trees along the fence line between 276 Cajon and 280 Cajon was kept. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Appellant stated that since taking ownership in 2002, 276 Cajon Street has had four different owners. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) The first two owners held the property for two decades and worked to keep the tree levels and preserve the ground level view and second level view of 280 Cajon Street. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) He mentioned that on occasion 280 Cajon Street owner would 19 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
contract with the landscaper directly and share the costs with the former Property owners. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.)
Appellant stated that in 2020, the Property changed hands to a person, not the current owner, but a person that just refused to keep the trees lower. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) At that time, he initiated the view preservation process and documented both ground-level view and upper-level view that 280 Cajon Street enjoyed for almost 20 years. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) Appellant stated his concern with letting these trees grow to the 20-foot level is that the trees are fastgrowing trees; they were trimmed at the end of 2020 and have grown 15 to 20 feet in the four years. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) He expressed concerns with allowing the trees to grow to 20 feet (i.e., the railing on the second level) since they would need to be trimmed again within a year and he expressed concern that Applicant or future Property owners would not trim the trees and his property is at a financial loss as the views are the value of the property. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.)
5. Applicant Rebuttal
The Property Owner, Susan Shore, spoke on behalf of the Applicant during Applicant Rebuttal. Her rebuttal is summarized below.
Applicant stated that the trees were several feet above the top of the railing when she purchased the Property which provided sufficient privacy for her to enjoy the garden. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) She learned that, during the escrow of the former owner, the trees were cut down to the level described by Appellant which is at the top of the fence (not top of the rail). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) She understands that the former owner was upset when she moved in because no one had consulted her and so she hired a lawyer, Larry Nokes. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) She stated that when she moved in, she thought the issue was resolved because the former owner hired an arborist to regrow the trees. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) She stated that when she purchased the Property, the trees had grown to an acceptable height (a little bit above the railing). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) She stated that she hired the same arborist as the former owner to trim the trees, but then she was cited by the City for significant view impairment. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) She stated she would be diligent about pruning. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.)
6. Board Clarification and Deliberations
During Board deliberations, as relevant here, the Board discussed privacy, landscaping, view equity. Below is a chart6 that identifies the design review criteria discussion of the project in the Board March 13, 2025 hearing transcript.
6 None of the charts in this staff report are an exhaustive of all commentary or deliberations, but are intended to be a tool to aid the City Council in its review of the evidence.
20 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
Topic Discussion
Related
Finding
Transcript Page
Nos.
[Commenter]
Landscaping
Clarification that the requested 20-foot
height of the trees along the fence between
276 Cajon and 280 Cajon is approximately
two feet above the railing.
N/A [Gibbs], p. 4 of 9
[Gannon], p. 4-5
of 9
Privacy
Evaluated whether tree height above the
railing is necessary for privacy and
determined that it was not necessary to
protect privacy. Suggested limiting the
height of the trees to either the deck level or
one foot above to protect privacy.
Concluded by suggesting a limit to the
height of the trees to the railing of the upper
deck. Noted that the trees are not right up
against the railing as they are set back and
provide a screen even if the trees are the
height of the railing. Noted that the trees
could be cut lower and privacy would still be
protected.
Design
Review
Finding No.
1, Criteria
No. 11
[Gibbs], p. 4 of 9
[Coveny] p. 6 of 9
[Thalman] p. 6 of
9 [Weil] p. 6-7 of 9
View Equity
Concluded by suggesting limiting the height
of the trees to the railing of the upper deck
because if the trees grow higher it will block
the view for the neighbors in their primary
room. Emphasized that the view is protected
from the primary residence of the uphill,
second-floor tenant with the trees
maintained at the railing. Expressed that the
trees cannot be maintained higher.
Emphasized that with the first-floor,
downstairs tenant, the primary room has a
view corridor out the window that goes
along the alley. Concluded that maintaining
the tree (i.e., the lemon tree) at 9 feet
protects the view corridor and achieves view
equity.
Design
Review
Finding No.
1, Criteria
No. 16
p. 4 of 9 [Gibbs]
[Coveny] p. 6 of 9
[Thalman] p. 6 of
9 [Weil] p. 6-7 of 9
21 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2550 approving the Project, subject to the following three Project-specific conditions:
1. The Eureka Lemon tree must be no taller than nine feet from grade.
2. The trees along the property line between 276 and 280 Cajon Street shall not exceed the railing height of the second-floor deck of 280 Cajon Street as it exists today (March 13, 2025), with staff to confirm the elevation of the railing and mark it on the landscaping plan.7
3. As depicted on the version of the plan presented by the applicant at the meeting, the Brachychiton near the front of the property shall be maintained no taller than the roof ridge of 276 Cajon Street.
Below is the revised landscape plan, as presented by the Applicant, in response to the Board’s adoption of Resolution No. 24-2550, subject to the Project-specific conditions:
Figure 3. Landscaping dimensions as conditioned by the Board at 276 Cajon Street
RESPONSE TO APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment G). The City Council is tasked with evaluating the issues raised in the Appeal, as to whether the Board abused its 7 City staff confirmed that the corresponding height is 12 feet, four inches above existing grade or approximately 173.6 feet above sea level and has since marked it on the landscape plan. 22 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
discretion in approving the Project (as explained in the Standard of Review section). Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.
1. “Lack of timely meeting notice. [Appellant] received [the] public hearing postcard on the 12th, the day before the meeting. Fortunately, [Appellant] saw the notice posted in [the Appellant’s] neighbor’s yard.”
Staff’s Response
The Laguna Beach Municipal Code requires notice by mailing, posting, and publication in a newspaper of general circulation for appeals of land use decisions. (LBMC Section 25.005.070 and 25.05.065(D), (E), and (F).) The City provided notice in accordance with the requirements as reflected in the affidavit of mailing and affidavit of posting (Attachment J). As it relates to the mailing, the affidavit of mailing shows that the public notice was mailed on February 19, 2025 to 280 Cajon Street no less than 21 days before the public hearing as required by Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.065(D). Further, Appellant admits to receiving some notice and attended the public hearing before the Board and provided public comments in opposition to the Project.
The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.
2. “Lack of stakeholder engagement and participation. Only one Board member met with [Appellant] at the site to hear the [Appellant’s] claim. Then I was allotted only 3 minutes at the meeting.”
Staff response:
As disclosed before the public hearing before the Board, Board Member Coveny went to the adjacent property, Board Member Gibbs went to 280 and 282 Cajon Street and spoke with upstairs and downstairs tenants, Board Chair Gannon went to 280 Cajon Street, Board Chair Pro Tem Thalman met with Appellant, and Board Member Weil met with tenants of 280 Cajon Street. (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 1 of 9.) In addition, prior to March 1, 2025, the applicant, Susan Shore, met the adjacent apartment tenants to discuss the project as part of the early neighborhood communication requirement.
The Board is allowed to adopt reasonable regulations on public participation including regulations limiting the total amount of time allocated for public testimony on particular issues and for each individual speaker. (Gov. Code Section 54954.3(b).) This authorization under the Brown Act is intended to properly strike a balance between the public’s need to address their officials, while also allowing the public entity to manage meetings and complete business in a reasonably efficient manner. The Board provides each public speaker up to 3 minutes to provide public comments and testimony to ensure the Board is able to complete its agenda in a reasonably efficient manner. Here, the Appellant was provided 3 minutes in accordance with the Board’s policy.
The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.
3. “No compromise to appease both parties. The [A]pplicant got all her vegetation height requests. There was no consideration of impacts to my property ranging from financial to maintenance.”
23 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
Staff response:
The first clarification that the Board made before deliberations was that the Applicant’s requested 20-foot height limitation of the trees along the fence between 276 Cajon and 280 Cajon is approximately two feet above the railing. Thereafter, the Board approved the height limitation of such trees at the height of the railing. Therefore, the Board approved a vegetation height lower than the height requested by the Applicant.
To ensure that Applicant maintained the trees at the appropriate height limitations, the Board asked staff to verify the height at an elevation near the actual landscaping and reflect the height on the landscape plan.
Accordingly, City staff verified that the height of the railing of the second-floor deck of 280 Cajon Street as it existed on the date of the Board’s decision (March 13, 2025) is 12 feet, four inches above existing grade or approximately 173.6 feet above sea level. Further, with respect to the lemon tree, the Applicant originally proposed to maintain the lemon tree at the height of 11 feet but then reduced the requested height to 9 feet in response to a Board Member comment. The Board discussed that should the vegetation exceed the height limits imposed by the Board, enforcement actions could commence.
The Board analyzed both privacy concerns and view equity concerns. In terms of the Applicant’s privacy, the Board determined that allowing the tree heights to exceed the railing would not serve privacy and therefore limited the tree heights to the height of the railing. In terms of the Appellant’s view equity, the Board determined that the upper level’s view is protected by maintaining the trees at the railing and the lower level’s view is protected by maintaining the lemon tree at 9 feet.
The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.
4. “Affected party’s consideration. We have had an ocean view fore [sic] over 30 years. Privacy was never an issue with the several 276 Cajon owners over the years who trimmed the trees to preserve our view. We also had an approved view preservation claim for several years.” The City of Laguna Beach (“City”) adopted a View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Chapter 12.16). It allows a property owner to establish a protected or preserved view by filing for a record of views within the City. The City may issue a view restoration order and require restoration action upon determination of a significant view impairment. Vegetation that is approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits are established pursuant to the design review process are exempt from the City’s View Preservation and Restoration Ordinance. (LBMC Section 12.16.080(e).) On October 21, 2021, Appellant at 280 Cajon Street (VPP 2020-7819) recorded a record of view through the City’s View Preservation Process (Chapter 12.16). During the public hearing before the Board on the design review application for landscaping, Applicant describes the height of the trees, at the time of the recorded record of view, as at the fence (not top of the rail). (Attachment F [Transcript], p. 4 of 9.) Applicant further describes that the former property owner was upset by this height level and retained legal counsel.
Applicant described that, when she purchased the Property, the trees were several feet above the top of the railing and provided sufficient privacy for her to enjoy the garden. (Attachment 6 [Transcript], p. 3 of 9.) When she was maintaining the trees at this height, she was then cited by the City of Laguna Beach for a significant view impairment.
As a remedy to her code enforcement matter, Applicant sought design review of landscaping to identify appropriate heights for the landscaping in light of her privacy and the neighbors’ view equity. This 24 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
procedure exempts approved landscaping from enforcement of a record of view. The Board determined that limiting the height of the vegetation to the railing protected Applicant’s privacy and Appellant’s view equity.
The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.
5. “Vague decision on height was made. The [A]pplicant asked for 20 foot trees and vegetation.
The [B]oard decided the upper railing as the marquee. The height isn’t 20 feet.” Staff response:
The first clarification that the Board made before deliberations was that the Applicant’s requested 20-foot height limitation of the trees along the fence between 276 Cajon and 280 Cajon is approximately two feet above the railing. Thereafter, the Board approved the height limitation of such trees at the height of the railing. Therefore, the Board approved a vegetation height lower than the height requested by the Applicant.
To ensure that Applicant maintained the trees at the appropriate height limitations, the Board asked staff to verify the height at an elevation near the actual landscaping and reflect the height on the landscape plan.
Accordingly, City staff verified that the height of the railing of the second-floor deck of 280 Cajon Street as it existed on the date of the Board’s decision (March 13, 2025) is 12’-4” above existing grade or approximately 173.6 feet above sea level. Further, with respect to the lemon tree, the Applicant originally proposed to maintain the lemon tree at the height of 11 feet but then reduced the requested height to 9 feet in response to a Board Member comment. The Board discussed that should the vegetation exceed the height limits imposed by the Board, enforcement actions could commence.
The Board did not commit abuse of discretion.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, in that the project consists of the repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing structures or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Here, the project involves landscaping improvements to a developed property. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment in that the project involves proposing maximum heights and widths for existing landscaping.
Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas according to the City’s GIS. There will be no cumulative impact resulting from successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time. There are no unusual circumstances resulting in a significant impact on the environment. 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. 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 according to Cortese List. The project will not result in significant adverse impacts to historical resources as defined 25 Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2550 at 276 Cajon Street August 12, 2025
by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.
ATTACHMENTS
A. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 14-21)
B. March 13, 2025 DRB Staff Report and Resolution No. 24-2550 (Pgs. 22-35) C. March 13, 2025 DRB Project Plans (Pg. 36)
D. March 13, 2025 DRB Public Comments (Pgs. 37-43)
E. March 13, 2025 DRB Minutes (Pgs. 44-64)
F. March 13, 2025 DRB Transcript (Pgs. 65-73)
G. Appeal (Pgs. 74-75)
H. Public Notice for City Council Public Hearing (Pg. 76) I. 280 Cajon Record of View (Pgs. 77-96)
J. Affidavits of Mailing and Posting for March 13, 2025 DRB Hearing (Pgs. 97-102) K. Affidavits of Mailing, Posting and Publication for CC Hearing (Pgs. 103-106) L. Order of Testimony (Pg. 107)
Report Prepared By:
Daniel Latham, Associate Planner
Coordinated With:
Jane Abzug, Assistant City Attorney
Anthony Viera, Planning Manager
26