Laguna Beach City Council
August 12, 2025

RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

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
WHEREAS, the property owner, Susan Shore (“Applicant”), of 276 Cajon Street (the “Property”) 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) (the “Project”) in the R2 (Residential Medium-Density) zone; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project, received public testimony, and voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2550, conditionally approving the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15301; and WHEREAS, on March 25, 2025, Garth Jorgensen of 280 Cajon Street (“Appellant”), filed an appeal of the Board’s approval of the Project (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on May 20, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and continued the public hearing to August 12, 2025; and
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed 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.

Attachment A
1427
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings in response to grounds for appeal stated in Appellants’ notice of Appeal:

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.”
City Council Finds:

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 10). 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.”
City Council Finds:

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 6 [Transcript], p. 1 of 9.) In addition, prior to 1528
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.”
City Council Finds:

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 1629
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.”
City Council Finds:

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 1730
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 6 [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 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.”
City Council Finds:

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 1831
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
SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines that the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) 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 1932
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 by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 4. The City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Design Review Board on DR 24-2550, as reflected in Design Review Board Resolution No. 24-2550, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED this 12th day of August, 2025.

Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
2033
I, Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk of the City of Laguna Beach, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 25.XXX was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City held on August 12, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California
2134

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
March 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.5
Case No: Design Review 24-2550
Project Location: 276 Cajon Street | APN: 053-123-22
Applicant: Steve Kawaratani
(949) 290-0210 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Susan Shore
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Daniel Latham | Associate Planner
(949) 464-6612 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
RECOMMENDATION: Conduct a public hearing and by motion adopt Resolution 24-2559 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2550 for landscaping and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Steve Kawaratani, is requesting Design Review 24-2250. The proposed project includes landscaping with proposed heights and widths (the “Project”). The applicant has submitted a landscape plan to address landscaping in violation of the recorded view from the units at 280 Cajon Street. The property at 280 Cajon Street has a record of their ocean view (Attachment 3) established through the view preservation process. The applicant would like to maintain the landscaping at a certain height and width to maintain privacy while not obstructing the view from the upper level of 280 Cajon Street. Vegetation approved through the Design Review process and in which vegetation height limits were established, are exempt from the view preservation process. Therefore, approval of a landscape plan by the Design Review Board that denotes maximum heights and widths would supersede the record of view for 280 Cajon Street (Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC) 12.16.080(e)).

Staff recommends that the Board deliberate on the maintained landscape dimensions and consider additional conditions of approval to address view equity for 280 Cajon Street and privacy for the project site at 276 Cajon Street.

Attachment B
2235
DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Medium Density (1-22 DU/AC) Zoning Designation R-2 Residential Medium Density
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The subject property has an open code case (CE 23-0262) for trees in violation of the recorded view of 280 Cajon Street (VPP 2020-7819), which was recorded on October 21, 2021. To address the code case, the applicant is proposing to establish maximum heights and widths for the plantings for review and approval by the Design Review Board. There are no prior Design Review approvals for 276 Cajon Street. 2336
DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

Proposed Project
The applicant requests Design Review to address a code enforcement case for landscaping that violates a view preservation case (VPP 2020-7819) for 280 Cajon Street. The applicant would like to maintain the landscaping no higher than the walkway/deck railing of 280 Cajon Street to maintain their privacy while not obstructing the view from the upper level of 280 Cajon Street. Pursuant to LBMC 12.16.080(e), approval of a landscape plan to establish maximum heights and widths by the Design Review Board would supersede the record of view.

ENTITLEMENTS: Included within this staff report is an analysis of the following entitlements: Design Review.

Design Review
The following element requires Design Review: landscaping. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is governed by LBMC Section 25.05.040. Design Review is considered by the Design Review Board at a duly noticed public hearing where the following findings are considered in relation to the proposed development:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:

1. Access. Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.

N/A. The project involves landscaping improvements; therefore, there are no changes to access.

2. Design Articulation: Within the allowable building envelope, the appearance of building and retaining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to, separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the size of any one element in the structure may be used to reduce the appearance of mass.

N/A. The project involves landscaping improvement, and there are no changes to existing structures.

3. Design Integrity: Consistency with the applicant’s chosen style of architecture should be achieved by the use of appropriate materials and details. Remodels should be harmonious with the remaining existing architecture.

N/A. The project involves landscaping improvement and there are no changes to existing structures.

4. Environmental Context: Development should preserve and, where possible, enhance the city’s scenic natural setting. Natural features, such as existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines and significant watercourses should be protected. Existing terrain should be utilized in the design and grading should be minimized.
2437
DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

Yes. The project site does not contain existing heritage trees, rock out-cropping, ridgelines or significant watercourses.

5. General Plan Compliance: The development shall comply with all applicable policies of the General Plan, including all of its elements, applicable specific plans, and the certified local coastal program.

Yes. The proposed project complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan as evidenced in the findings below.

General Plan Policies
LU Policy 2.10 Maximize the preservation of coastal and canyon views (consistent with the principle of view equity) from existing properties and minimize blockage of existing public and private views. Best efforts should be made to site new development in locations that minimize adverse impacts on views from public locations (e.g., roads, bluff top trails, visitor-serving facilities, etc.).

The landscaping height allows for view equity from the upper level of the 280 Cajon Street property.

However, the landscaping height may need to lower in certain areas to allow for view equity to be maintained for the lower level. Therefore, staff recommends the Board visit the project to determine if view equity is achieved.

6. Historic Preservation: Destruction or alteration to historic resources should be avoided whenever possible. See Chapter 25.45 for more information.

N/A. The project site does not contain historic resources. The existing structure is not being altered as the project only involves landscaping.

7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated part of the structure’s design and relate harmoniously to neighborhood and community landscaping themes. View equity shall be an important consideration in the landscape design. The relevant landscaping guidelines contained in the City’s “Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document” should be incorporated, as appropriate, in the design and planned maintenance of proposed landscaping.

Yes. The proposed landscaping plan establishes maximum heights and widths for eight trees along the property line that abuts 280 Cajon Street and includes a note that states the citrus tree will be maintained to not exceed the elevation of the top of the railing for the property at 280 Cajon Street in order to maintain the record of view. The other trees that have the potential to block views are proposed at 20 feet in height. The existing king palms are not expected to block views due to their height and limited foliage compared to the other tree types.

8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighboring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g., skylights, white rock roofs, high2538 DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.

N/A. The proposed project does not propose landscape lighting.

9. Neighborhood Compatibility: Development shall be compatible with the existing development in the neighborhood and respect neighborhood character. Neighborhood character is the sum of the qualities that distinguish areas within the City, including historical patterns of development (e.g., structural heights, mass, scale or size), village atmosphere, landscaping themes and architectural styles.

Yes. The proposed landscaping is in keeping with the neighborhood character, which has a mix of different types and heights of trees.

10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses. Incorporation of articulated building masses, compact open spaces and courtyards, mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian access should be maximized.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Pedestrian Orientation is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

11. Privacy: The placement of activity areas (e.g., decks, picture windows and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimized.

Yes. The proposed maximum heights and widths of the trees maintain privacy for both properties located at 276 Cajon Street and 280 Cajon Street by allowing the vegetation to act as natural barrier between the properties to enhance livability and privacy.

12. Public Art: Public art is encouraged and shall be displayed where feasible or required by the Art in Public Places ordinance.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Public Art is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.

13. Sign Quality: Signs shall be incorporated into the architecture of the structure and shall be made of high quality materials, be simple in design and be visually compatible with the surrounding physical environment in terms of color, scale and size. Use of natural materials in the construction of signs is encouraged.

N/A. Design Review Criteria for Signage is related to commercial development and is not applicable to the proposed project.
2639
DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

14. Sustainability: New development should consider architecture and building practices which minimize environmental impacts and enhance energy efficiency by: (a) reducing energy needs of buildings by proper site and structural design; (b) increasing the building’s ability to capture or generate energy; (c) using low-impact, sustainable and recycled building materials; (d) using the latest Best Management Practices regarding waste and water management; and (e) reducing site emissions.

N/A. The project does not include new structures and is related to landscaping only.

15. Swimming Pools, Spas, and Water Features: Swimming pools, spas and water features shall be located, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow; (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associated fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.

N/A. The project does not involve a swimming pool, spa, or water feature.

16. View Equity: The development, including its landscaping, shall be designed to protect existing views from neighboring properties without denying the subject property the reasonable opportunity to develop as described and illustrated in the City’s “Design Guidelines.” The “Design Guidelines” are intended to balance preservation of views with the right to develop property.

Limiting the height of dense vegetation to the second floor railing could be conditioned to achieve view equity for 280 Cajon while maintaining privacy for both properties. Staff recommends the Board visit the site to determine if the proposed heights and widths adequately address this criterion and provide view equity.

Finding No. 2. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with all other applicable design guidelines.

Yes. The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.

Finding No. 3. The physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are characterized by appropriately scaled development, diverse and unique architectural designs, pedestrian orientation, and sensitivity to the natural conditions of the site.

N/A. The project involves proposing to establish the height and width of trees located on the subject property.

Finding No. 4. The project is consistent with any specific plan or any other specific zoning design review criteria.

The project is not located in a specific plan area, nor subject to additional design review criteria. 2740
DR 24-2550
March 13, 2025

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

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 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 by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION:

Conduct a public hearing and if the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the privacy and view equity Design Review Criteria, then it is recommended that the Board, by motion, adopt Resolution 24-2550 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2550 and finding said action exempt from CEQA.

NOTIFICATION:

Pursuant to Title 25 (Zoning) Public Notice, a public hearing notice has been mailed at least twenty-one (21) days prior to the hearing date in accordance with Title 25. In addition, a public hearing notice has been posted on the project site at least 10 days in advance of the hearing date.

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-2550
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – 280 Cajon Street View Preservation Record (VPP 2020-7819) Attachment 4 – Public Correspondence
2841
DRB RESOLUTION 24-2550

A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 24-2550 LOCATED AT 276 CAJON STREET AND APPROVING CATEGORICAL

EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT.

WHEREAS on April 3, 2024, an application was filed by the owner of property located at 276 Cajon Street ("Applicant"), requesting Design Review for landscaping (the "Project"); and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on March 13, 2025 pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board has considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach does hereby fmd, determine, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.

The Design Review Board hereby finds that the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301.

Here, the project involves landscaping improvements to a developed property. 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 by CEQA. Consequently, additional environmental analysis is not necessary to meet the requirements of the CEQA.

SECTION 2. The Design Review Board hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review 24-2550:

Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
2942
30 43
31 44
32 45
33 46
34 47
35 48

PLANTING LEGEND

ABBREV BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME MAINTAINED SIZE
TREES
ARC ARCHONTOPHOENIX ALEX. KING PALM 40' H X 10' W
BRA BRACHYCHITON POPULNEUS KURRAJONG 17h

' H X 8' W CIT CITRUS LIMON 'EUREKA' EUREKA LEMON 12' H X 12' W
GRE GREWIA CAFFRA LAV. STAR FLOWER ' H X 8' W
MEL MELALEUCA QUENQUINERVIA PAPERBARK TREE ' H X 9' W PIT PITTOSPORUM TENUIFOLIUM KOHUHU ' H X 8' W
280 CAJON STREET
276 CAJON STREET
TURF

ARC ARC ARC
CIT

BRA PIT

MEL BRA

GRE MEL BRA

PARKING
PATIO

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

WALKWAY
FENCE

EXISTING LANDSCAPE

DRIVEWAY

EXISTING LANDSCAPE
SYSB
PROJECT ADDRESS: 276 CAJON DRIVE
LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSED PRIVACY LANDSCAPE

LANDSCAPES BY LAGUNA NURSERY
1 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'- 0"
DATE: 3/29/24

PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MAINTAINED AT TOP OF WALKWAY RAILING

PIT PLANTER BOX
V.1 - 4.24
3' Height increase as noted
BRA Brachychiton to be maintained at roof ridge. 1
• The existing landscape is proposed to be 20’ high to preserve privacy and maintain livability for the master bedroom and outdoors area, while maintaining privacy and views for the neighboring apartments.
• The lemon tree is not to exceed the top of the walkway railing. • Width of landscape is noted on the planting legend and is limited by space. • The vegetation has historically been grown to maintain privacy and livability and as noted by sta, the landscape application is neighborhood compatible. • The Brachychiton in the front yard will be maintained at the adjacent roof ridge.

Not to exceed railing
height of 280 Cajon (12
feet, four inches above
existing grade or
approximately 173.6 feet
9' height from grade
above sea level)

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
APPROVED SIGNATURE ____________________________________ DATE ____________________________________ dlatham 03/14/2025 3-13-25 Attachment C
3649
1 Latham, Daniel CD
From: Garth Jorgensen <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 3:30 PM
To: Latham, Daniel CD
Subject: Case No 24-2550 – 280 Cajon Site Visit Request Attachments: Site Visit Agreement.pdf; Letter to City Planner 6.22.24.pdf; 2008.1.JPG; 2008.2.JPG; 2021.1.JPEG; 2021.2.JPEG; 2021.3.JPEG
[NOTICE: This message originated outside of City of Laguna Beach -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.] Hello Daniel,
I am the owner of 280 Cajon Street and am writing to invite the Design Review Board to see the obstructed view at 280 Cajon Street as a result of the trees/landscaping of 276 Cajon Street. This issue appears on the Design Review agenda scheduled for March 13th. 280 Cajon had an ocean and Catalina view for the 20 years since we purchased the property in 2002. The previous owner of 276 Cajon (who purchased the property in 2020) let aggressive trees grow unmaintained for multiple years. The property was sold to the current owner who has done the same. These trees continue to further obstruct the view from all levels of our property. We no longer have an ocean view for most of the property.

A city view preservation agreement was started in 2021, and we have worked with the city’s code enforcement to restore our view. Attached is a letter we sent to the city planner last year regarding the timeline and our efforts to maintain our view. Additional photos from 2008 and 2021 and the site visit agreement are attached.

Please email me of contact me at (949) 813-8673 to visit the property at your convenience. Please help us regain the view we’ve had for so many years.

Thank you,
Garth and Korey Jorgensen
(949) 813-8673
[email protected]
Attachment D
3750
June 22, 2024
Daniel Latham
Associate Planner
City of Laguna Beach
Mr. Latham,
I am not sure what you are going to base your determination of the appropriate tree height between 276 Cajon and 280 Cajon once your review is complete, but I’ll give you some historical context.

We purchased 280 Cajon on July 31, 2002. At the time Helena Tummers owned the downhill property at 276 Cajon. Helena planted the trees in-question in 2004 and assured us she would trim the trees to the shared fence level and never allow the trees to grow above the fence or tall enough to obstruct our ocean view. She kept that promise and even allowed us to coordinate the tree trimming a few times.

The property was sold to Angela Parise on April 10, 2018. When the property sold, those trees were still kept at or below the height of the property fence. During her ownership, Angela maintained and kept the trees trimmed to the fence height. She even allowed us to coordinate the trimming in 2020.

On October 30, 2020, the property was purchased by Stephanie Clark. Stephanie was very adamant about letting the trees grow. At one point Stephanie accused us of trimming the trees without the prior owner’s consent and hired attorneys Nokes & Quinn to mandate we remediate the damage to her trees. We hired Davis & Toft, and the case was dismissed once both attorney partners agreed there was no viable claim against us.

On November 11, 2021, before the lawyer related remediation, we applied to the city for a View Preservation/Records of Views claim. We worked with Associate Planner Tony Farr, and our claim was approved and officially filed with the city on March 9, 2021.

The following two years we tried to work with Stephanie to trim the trees, spoke with her multiple times, but she let the trees grow well beyond the height of the bordering fence to where they block the ocean views of both the lower and upper levels of 280 Cajon.

We began working with LB Code Enforcement Officer Sabrina Sobczyk and proceeded with a Record of View Violation on May 4, 2023. Sabrina visited 280 Cajon nine (9) times to photograph and document the obstructed trees. We even had a visit from LB Planning Technician Joshua DeLoach on September 28, 2023 to also photograph and document the tree obstruction. At one point Stephanie informed us that she had initially notified the wrong owner in error and started the photograph and documentation process again with the new owner.

Now we have no ocean view. We have lost a tenant over the fact there is no more ocean view. And we have had to lower rents as a result of “false advertising,” because the units were rented with an ocean view. I am sure the resale value of the property less without an ocean view and we will suffer a significant and ongoing financial impact.

Please see the attached photos of how we once had no tree obstruction.

I am available should you want to review any back-up legal documentation and my documented communications with all parties involved.

Sincerely,
Garth Jorgensen
Property Owner
(949) 813-86736
3851
3952
4053
4154
4255
4356
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 1 - March 13, 2025

MINUTES

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DESIGN REVIEW BOARD

REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
March 13, 2025
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 5:00 P.M. on March 13, 2025.

Present: Chair Jessica Gannon, Board Members Tom Gibbs, Kristine Thalman, MJ Coveny, and Louis Weil

Absent: None.

Staff Present: Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager; Patrick Donegan, City Attorney’s Office; Daniel Latham, Associate Planner; Garrett Wank, Associate Planner; Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician; and Maria Ballard, Senior Office Specialist.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. PUBLIC COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the public may address the Design Review Board regarding any items not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Design Review Board. No action may be taken on off-agenda items unless authorized by law. Comments shall be limited to two (2) minutes each and fifteen (15) minutes for all comments, unless extended for good cause by the Design Review Board.

Public Testimony: Steve Kawaratani thanked the Board for their support during yesterday’s joint meeting with the City Council and acknowledged Board Member Kristine Thalman for her service. He mentioned that he would not be present at the next hearing and took the opportunity to extend birthday wishes to Board Member Kristine Thalman and Chair Jessica Gannon for their upcoming birthdays on Sunday.

3. MODIFICATION OF AGENDA ORDER
Interim Planning Manager Jim Campbell announced that item 4.3 for 167 Chiquita Street had been withdrawn earlier that day. Consequently, no Board action was needed, and the item was removed from the agenda.

Chair Gannon acknowledged the modification of agenda order.

4. CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1. MINUTES APPROVED
Approval of the minutes for the Design Review/Board of Adjustment meeting on February 27, 2025.

4.2. 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE (PRANER), APN: 658-101-04 CONTNUED TO MARCH 27, Attachment E
4457
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 2 - March 13, 2025 2025
DESIGN REVIEW 24-1151, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1152, VARIANCE 24-1153, AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15303] City Staff: Heather Steven, Senior Planner (949) 497-0332 [email protected] Project Applicant: David Parker, Architect (949) 872-6616 [email protected] Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Public Testimony: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Interim Planning Manager Campbell noted a correction to the minutes, stating that Speaker number nine should be identified as Anne Earhart. He confirmed that the revision would be made accordingly.

Chair Gannon accepted the correction.

Ms. Thalman made a motion, seconded by Ms. Gannon, to approve the consent calendar including the stated changes to the draft minutes. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.

Motion KT Second JG Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5. REGULAR

5.1. 1055 SUMMIT DRIVE (KOJIAN), APN: 644-386-14 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-141 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Sections 15301] City Staff: Sarah Olsen, Planning Technician (949) 715-1149 ext. 149 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Warren Hutcherson, Designer, (949) 338-6905, [email protected]

The applicant requests approval of Design Review 24-1414. The proposed project includes architectural modifications, introducing a new color palette and new materials to the existing building, and installing an A/C condenser on the existing third-level deck to serve an ADU.

Chair Gannon asked if the project presentation could be expedited, and the Board agreed.

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs stated that he met with Warren at the site. Ms. Coveny mentioned that she spoke with Warren. Mr. Weil and Ms. Thalman noted that they both spoke with Warren and drove by the property. Chair Gannon stated that she also drove by the property.
4558
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 3 - March 13, 2025 Staff Presentation: Planning Technician, Sarah Olsen provided a brief description of the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Warren Hutcherson presented the project and noted the removal of the air conditioning condenser from the project description.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs stated that the project meets all guidelines and is a significant improvement to the property. He saw no issue with a brushed metal garage door and appreciated the relocation of the air conditioner. He expressed his support for the project.

Ms. Coveny stated that she concurred with Mr. Gibbs’ comments.

Mr. Weil stated that the design articulation meets the guidelines and is well-suited for the location, which transitions between different zones as the hill slopes down. He noted that the design is more compatible with homes further down Summit Drive, where street-facing garages are common. Overall, he felt the design was compatible with the site and in line with the guidelines.

Ms. Thalman stated that she had no comments.

Chair Gannon stated that she had no comments but agreed with the remarks made by her colleagues.

Mr. Weil asked if the three components of concern raised by staff had been addressed.

Planning Technician, Ms. Olsen said yes.

Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Mr. Gibbs, to adopt Resolution 24- 1414 approving Design Review 24-1414 for architectural modifications to an existing single-family residence without the air conditioning condenser on an existing deck and finding said action exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.

4659
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 4 - March 13, 2025 Motion LW Second TG Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.2. 32002 SUNSET AVENUE (MCVICKER), APN: 056-144-04 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-1159, VARIANCE 24-2622, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303]
City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Vince DiBiasi, Architect, (949) 378-3895, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-1159 and Variance 24-2622. The proposed project includes conversion of existing 5.2 3 floor area to an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), an upper-level addition (441 square feet), elevated deck (116 square feet), new exterior façade, new doors and windows, retaining walls, hardscape, grading and landscaping. The ADU is not subject to design review. A variance is requested to not provide two covered parking spaces [LBMC 25.52.012(G)] and to provide one uncovered parking space in the front yard [LBMC 25.10.008(E)(2)(a)].

Disclosures: Mr. Weil mentioned that he visited the site again. Chair Gannon, Ms.

Coveny, and Ms. Thalman shared that they spoke with Steve Kawaratani. Ms. Thalman also noted that she drove by the site. Mr. Gibbs stated that he had not taken any action but wanted to clarify for the record that he had completed all due diligence on the project during the previous review, as the project had not changed.

Mr. Weil recommended that the hearing be expedited.

Chair Gannon agreed.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, described the project and the staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Steve Kawaratani presented the project.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: Mr. Kawaratani added that, based on the draft variance findings, and addressing previous concerns, there is no privilege granted by the variance.

Board Questions: Mr. Weil asked whether the air conditioner is in a position that does not require approval from the Design Review Board (DRB).

Associate Planner, Mr. Latham stated that he would check on the matter but recalled that the air conditioner is located towards the front of the property, outside the front yard setback, and is likely enclosed.
4760
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 5 - March 13, 2025

Mr. Weil mentioned a question raised from an email and wanted to confirm that his understanding and readings were accurate.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs stated that he drove by a few properties to assess whether they met the findings of substantial rights, especially concerning special circumstances.

He noted the inconsistent parking throughout the area, adding that the broader South Laguna area, where these homes are located, reflects similar parking issues. While he acknowledged that the case is close due to the 1,000-square-foot difference, he believed the findings could still be supported. He clarified that this should not set a precedent for single parking spaces in the area but, given the facts, the findings are appropriate to support the variance approval. Regarding the overall project, Mr. Gibbs reiterated that it is well-designed, fits well within the neighborhood, and does not raise concerns about massing, scale, privacy, or views. He expressed confidence that the Board would approve the project.

Mr. Weil expressed his continued support for the project, noting his appreciation for how the team was able to accommodate parking despite the minor modifications and the inclusion of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) component. He stated that the variance is necessary to allow for reasonable improvements and enjoyment of the property. He further mentioned that the variance components outlined by staff were sufficient, and he expressed his support for the project this evening.

Chair Gannon expressed her continued support for the project, reaffirming her comments from the previous meeting. She thanked Daniel Latham for his work in making the necessary findings.

Ms. Thalman agreed with the findings, stating that the project is based on a technicality regarding the 1,466 square-foot addition and the inclusion of the ADU, which she felt was not significant. She expressed her support for the project, agreeing with the variance findings, and confirmed that she could approve the project tonight.

Ms. Coveny concurred with her colleagues, noting that while she had concerns about setting a precedent, she believed this project was a special circumstance. She acknowledged the project’s journey through the planning stages and, based on the variance findings provided by staff, she expressed her support for the project, stating it meets all Design Review criteria.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution approving Design Review 24-1159 and Variance 24-2622 for an upper-level addition (441 square feet), elevated deck (116 square feet), new exterior façade, new doors and windows, retaining walls, hardscape, grading, landscaping and variance to not provide two covered parking spaces and to provide one uncovered parking space in the front yard and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15303. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.
4861
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 6 - March 13, 2025

Motion TG Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.3. 31282 CEANOTHUS DRIVE (BRINEY), APN: 056-051-12 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2381, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-2382, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303]
City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Stan Andrade, Andrade Architects, Inc., (949) 715- 7474, [email protected]

The applicant requests approval of Design Review 24-2381 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2382 to allow a proposed ADU to exceed the height development standard for ADUs, and for 5.3 4 decks more than three feet above grade, and for grading in excess of 20 cubic yards outside the building footprint

Disclosures: Mr. Weil and Ms. Thalman mentioned that they visited the site. Mr. Gibbs noted that he met John Craig from the applicant team at the site. Ms. Coveny shared that she also visited the site. Chair Gannon added that she went by the site as well and met with John Craig from the applicant team.

Mr. Weil requested to expedited the hearing.

Mr. Gibbs noted that the only issue is a late letter received from a resident. He requested that the planner and the applicant address any comments or concerns raised in the letter.

Mr. Weil inquired if the presentation would be abbreviated.

Chair Gannon agreed.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs raised an issue regarding the March 6 letter, which he received today in public comment. The letter expressed concern that the home and the proposed ADU are more than half a mile from public transportation, requiring a designated parking spot for the ADU. He asked whether the designated parking spot is called out in the plans for the ADU, and whether it is required and satisfied.

Mr. Latham clarified that the designated parking space for the ADU is highlighted in the presentation and located on the driveway. He explained that, according to the code, an ADU parking space can be in the front yard setback.

Chair Gannon asked if there are retaining walls between the street and the parking spot, seeking clarification on the layout.
4962
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 7 - March 13, 2025 Associate Planner, Mr. Latham, said yes.

Ms. Thalman raised a question about neighborhood compatibility, asking if the fourthfloor ADU is consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

Mr. Latham mentioned that he pointed out two examples nearby in the staff report, specifically 31212 and 31214, which have four stories including the garage floor. He also noted that 31422, 31452, and 31460 are four-story properties as well, with possibly two more in the area. He highlighted these three properties as examples for comparison.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.

Project Representative: Stan Andrade presented the project.

Public Testimony: Jeff Briney shared that they have been residents of Laguna Beach for 26 years, having purchased their home in late 1999. Mr. Briney expressed their love for the area, their street, and their home, and mentioned being supportive of their neighbors’ remodels and additions. He acknowledged the challenges of having a rehabilitation home nearby, which has contributed to parking concerns. Despite this, Mr. Briney mentioned that they have made efforts to manage parking by installing lifts in their garages and ensuring they use their driveways to avoid taking up public parking. Mr.

Briney mentioned being patient and understanding throughout ongoing construction on their street and expressed excitement about moving their own project forward, appreciating the Board’s review of their plans.

Chair Gannon asked if Mr. Briney was the property owner.

Mr. Briney said yes.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing
Board Comments: Ms. Thalman stated that the project is self-explanatory and meets all the Design Review guidelines. She wished the applicant good luck, expressing sympathy for the lengthy process but noting that they are now at the final stage.

Chair Gannon mentioned that follows the comments made by Ms. Thalman. She recalled an experience from when she first joined the Board, where she did a ride along with the Fire Department and observed the fire truck backing up flawlessly at the end of the street. She explained that the parking for the ADU was clarified to her both earlier and again this evening. Chair Gannon shared that she was initially confused by the overall height and floor finish but, after reviewing the elevations, she understood that the finished floor of the garage does not extend all the way up to the ADU. She expressed her support for the findings presented by Mr. Latham and confirmed that she could support the project.

Ms. Coveny agreed with her colleagues, stating that the Design Review criteria have been met. She mentioned that the parking space, design articulation, and height were 5063
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 8 - March 13, 2025 appropriate, noting that the height is slightly higher but consistent with the rest of the neighborhood, where there are other four-story structures. She expressed her support for the project.

Mr. Gibbs stated that he believes the project meets all the guidelines and concurred with his colleagues. Regarding neighborhood compatibility, he mentioned walking up the street and observing that there are larger homes than the one proposed, which is consistent with the neighborhood. He noted that the four-story ADU is not really visible from the street and, during a site visit with Chair Gannon, they had difficulty locating it among the story poles. He concluded that the project clearly meets all the guidelines and expressed his support.

Mr. Weil stated that he concurred with his colleagues.

Ms. Thalman made a motion, seconded by Mr. Weil, to adopt Resolution 24- 2381 approving Design Review 24-2381 and Coastal Development Permit 24-2382 for a new attached accessory dwelling unit (“ADU”) exceeding the ADU height standard, an addition more than 15 feet above grade and an elevated deck and finding said action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15303 of the CEQA Guidelines. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.

Motion KT Second LW Action APPROVED
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.4. 1970 TEMPLE HILS DRIVE (COLLOPY)APN: 641-393-04 APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW 24-2367 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Nancy Balmer-Csira, Planner, (949) 715-1284, [email protected] Project Applicant: Ozzie Almendarez, OHA Construction, (951)990-4834, [email protected]
The applicant requests Design Review 25-0017 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25- 0016. The proposed project includes additions and alterations to an existing singlefamily residence including an upper-level addition, chimney height change, new elevated decks, a trash storage in the front setback, a pedestrian entry feature, a pool and spa, landscaping, and for improvements within the unimproved right-of-way consisting of a driveway gate, pool security fencing, gates, and steppingstones.

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs stated that he met with architect Oz Almendarez and the owners at the site. Ms. Coveny mentioned that she spoke with the applicant and Nancy Csira.

Chair Gannon shared that she visited the site and made attempts to contact the applicant.

Both Ms. Thalman and Mr. Weil confirmed that they also visited the site.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett Wank, described the project and staff’s recommendation.

Board Questions: Mr. Weil inquired about the trash enclosure, asking whether it is truly 5164
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 9 - March 13, 2025 an enclosed space or just an area for the trash cans to be placed. He questioned whether the cans would be fully enclosed or if the space would remain open, potentially making them visible from the street.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Project Representative: Oz Almendarez presented the project and stated the trash cans would not be visible. Mr. Almendarez thanked everyone for their assistance and apologized for missing one call, though he mentioned he received all the others.

Regarding the project, he shared that one neighbor at 2040 Temple Hills expressed concern about a window overlooking their master bedroom and bathroom. In response, they made changes, installing an awning and frosted glass, as well as trimming the trees near the window. He confirmed that all other concerns have been addressed, and they are now ready to move forward.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: None.

Board Questions: Chair Gannon inquired whether the installation of the awning and frosted glass was part of the resolution or if it needed to be included as a condition of approval.

Mr. Almendarez confirmed that the change to the awning and frosted glass has already been made in the plans.

Mr. Weil and Ms. Coveny inquired if the tree height had been memorialized on the landscape plan.

Mr. Almendarez said yes.

Ms. Thalman asked if there was a seating area in the Revocable Encroachment Permit area, pointing out what appeared to be a fire pit with three chairs, and asked for clarification if she was misreading it.

Mr. Almendarez clarified that the seating area is not within the Revocable Encroachment Permit area.

Mr. Weil asked if the seating area is within the front yard setback, but still within the property line.

Mr. Almendarez said yes.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Mr. Gibbs stated that after spending time reviewing the project and 5265
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 10 - March 13, 2025 examining the story poles, he found it to be a great and beautiful project. He appreciated the walk-through and renderings provided. He noted there were no material impacts on neighbors, no privacy or view equity issues, and the mass and scale were not concerns due to limited visibility from the street. He mentioned that the landscaping along the street would remain unchanged, and the items in the Revocable Encroachment Permit area—such as the driveway gate, security fencing, and steppingstones—are typical and appropriate. For these reasons, he expressed his support for the project.

Chair Gannon expressed her support for Mr. Gibbs' comments. She mentioned that had she seen any issues, she would have made more of an effort to contact the applicant.

After visiting the site and reviewing the project, she did not find any concerns. She stated that she could support the project that evening, echoed Mr. Gibbs' support, and endorsed Mr. Wank's excellent Design Review findings.

Ms. Coveny expressed her agreement with her colleagues, calling the project lovely and a wonderful future home for the applicants. She mentioned that the property now resembles a resort-like setting. Ms. Coveny appreciated the applicant’s efforts to address neighbor concerns regarding the window and trees. She confirmed that the findings for the Revocable Encroachment Permit (REP) and Design Review criteria had been met and stated that she could support the project that evening.

Ms. Thalman echoed her colleagues' comments and stated that she could support the project that evening. She noted that the project meets all the Design Review guidelines and is a modest improvement.

Mr. Weil concurred with his colleagues, stating that the project meets the Design Review criteria and is a modest improvement. He highlighted that the front yard improvements enhance the streetscape and are very neighborhood compatible. He expressed his support for the project.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion to approve the project and it was seconded by Ms. Thalman and several votes were cast; however, Chair Gannon interrupted and noted that a member of the audience was out of order, then proceeded to state that the public hearing had been closed.

Discussion ensued to confirm whether it had been announced that the public hearing was open for public comments following the applicant's presentation of the project.

City Attorney, Patrick Donegan suggested that, for the sake of the discussion, the previous votes should be set aside, and the focus should shift to exploring public comments.

Mr. Gibbs suggested that, due to some uncertainty, if all members do not recall the announcement, he would recommend revoking their votes and reopening the public hearing.
5366
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 11 - March 13, 2025 Mr. Weil stated that he thought it was fair to hold the motion open and reopen the public hearing, then asked if the individual wished to speak.

Chair Gannon reopened the public hearing for additional public comments.

Public Testimony: The neighbor at 2040 Temple Hills Drive, located directly to the left of the project, expressed curiosity about the easement and encroachment being discussed. They requested clarification on what it is and how it might impact their property, including the street and joint property line. Additionally, they inquired about the potential retaining wall around the pool area.

Rebuttal: Mr. Almendarez stated that the Revocable Encroachment Permit (REP) applies to existing areas, ensuring no impact on the street or property lines. Regarding the retaining walls, Mr. Almendarez stated that they will be fully engineered with support from civil engineers, including shoring measures to prevent any damage to the neighboring house.

Mr. Weil noted that, regarding the public comment, the REP primarily addresses where property lines end and connect to the unfinished street. The permit allows homeowners to extend driveways or walkways from their property line to the street.

Most improvements remain within property boundaries, with only driveway components requiring approval. This process is typically a formality and not a major concern.

Mr. Gibbs noted that it is common throughout the city for areas next to the street to be owned by the city, typically extending by about five feet. The REP process allows features like driveways and gates in these areas. Specific findings outlined in the code ensure the city's ability to access these areas if needed while preventing any impact on neighboring properties in this case.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Mr. Weil requested to pick up from the previous discussion.

Mr. Gibbs expressed that, based on the comments received, he does not believe they affected any of the findings related to the guidelines or the variance. Specifically, he maintained his support for the project considering the findings related to the REP.

Therefore, he continues to support the project.

Ms. Coveny stated that she concurred and supports the project.

Chair Gannon agreed with her colleagues’ statements.

Mr. Weil stated his support for the project.

Ms. Thalman concurred.
5467
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 12 - March 13, 2025 Mr. Gibbs restated his motion, second by Ms. Thalman , to adopt Resolution 25- 0017 approving Design Review 25-0017 and Revocable Encroachment Permit 25-0016 for additions and alterations to a single-family dwelling, and proposed improvements within the public right-of-way in the R-1 zone and finding said action exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.

Motion TG Second KT Action APPROVED
Coveny _Y_ Gibbs __Y__ Weil _Y_ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.5. 276 CAJON STREET (SHORE) APN: 053-123-22 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 2550 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15301] City Staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 [email protected] Project Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, (949)290-0210, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-2250 for landscaping with proposed heights and widths to address landscaping in violation of the recorded view from the units at 280 Cajon Street.

Disclosures: Chair Gannon mentioned that she had met with the property owner, Steve Kawaratani, and visited the apartments located on the hillside to the right. Mr. Gibbs shared that he also met with Steve Kawaratani at the project site, walked over to apartments 280 and 282 Cajon, spoke with the upstairs tenants, and visited the deck of the upstairs unit. He further stated that he visited the downstairs apartment facing the alley and spoke with the tenant there. Ms. Coveny indicated that she had spoken with Steve Kawaratani, walked to the property, and visited the adjacent properties. Ms.

Thalman stated that she visited the site with Steve Kawaratani and Garth Jorgenson. Mr.

Weil confirmed the same, noting that he had also met with the applicant at her home and spoke with one of the tenants whose name he believed was Alex, though he did not write it down.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Daniel Latham, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs asked a question regarding the heights outlined in the landscape plan, specifically about the height of 40 feet. He clarified that he is not a landscape expert and wanted to confirm if he was reading the plan correctly.

Associate Planner, Mr. Latham, asked for a moment to look into the matter

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing
Mr. Kawaratani asked if he could answer that question.

Mr. Gibbs said yes.
5568
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 13 - March 13, 2025 Mr. Kawaratani clarified that it was a palm tree, and it would be top off at the specified height.

Mr. Gibbs asked if that palm tree existed.

Mr. Kawaratani stated that it was.

Chair Gannon suggested giving the applicant their five minutes for their presentation.

Project Representative: Steve Kawaratani and Susan Shore presented the project.

Public Testimony: Garth Jorgenson greeted the Board and thanked the Board Members and staff for their work on the project and for visiting the site. He introduced himself as one of the owners of the uphill property at 280 Cajon Street, which he and his family have owned since 2002. Mr. Jorgenson requested that the trees be maintained at heights outlined in the View Preservation records approved by the city on March 9, 2021. He explained that the trees along the fence line, about 8 feet off the ground, had been kept at a certain height for almost 20 years, with cooperation from the downhill neighbors.

Over the years, multiple property owners had worked together to maintain the trees' height and preserve views. In 2020, when ownership changed, the new owner refused to maintain the trees, leading Mr. Jorgenson to initiate the View Preservation process.

Mr. Jorgenson expressed concern about the proposed 20-foot height for the trees, noting their rapid growth since being trimmed in 2020, 15 to 20 feet in four years. He worried that if allowed to grow to 20 feet, the trees would block views and require frequent trimming. He questioned whether the current or future owners would properly maintain the trees and trim them from an upper-level balcony. He emphasized that the views are valuable to the property, and the failure to preserve them would result in a financial loss.

Rebuttal: Ms. Shore thanked the Board for listening to her position and shared her experience with the property. She explained that when she moved into the property a few years ago, she interacted with the previous owner and the realtor. At that time, the trees were several feet above the top of the railing, which contributed to her decision to purchase the property for its privacy and garden space. Ms. Shore detailed that the previous owner had purchased the property a year before she did, and during escrow, the trees were cut down to the level of the fence without consulting her. The previous owner, upset by the drastic trimming, hired a lawyer. She explained that this issue was eventually resolved, with the previous owner hiring an arborist to help regrow the trees, which involved injecting slow-growing trees. By the time Ms. Shore moved in, the trees had grown to an acceptable height, just above the railing. Ms. Shore added that she hired the same arborist a few months later to trim the trees, paying several thousand dollars for the service. She took pride in maintaining her property and considered herself a good neighbor. However, a few weeks after the trimming, she received a citation from the city for showing an obstructed view. Ms. Shore emphasized her commitment to regular pruning and maintaining the trees, stating she would ensure they are pruned annually or as needed.
5669
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 14 - March 13, 2025

Board Questions: Mr. Gibbs raised a question, noting that he had previously discussed it with Steve. He asked for clarification regarding the 20-foot height, stating that, if he was correct, it was approximately 2 feet above the rail.

Mr. Kawaratani stated that was correct.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the applicant would be willing to agree to a height of 18 feet, which would align with the height of the railing. He explained that he sat on the deck and in the living room and observed that if the trees grew higher than the railing, it would block the view from the primary room. He asked if the applicant was willing to consider this adjustment.

Mr. Kawaratani referenced a previous issue at 1813 Temple Hills Drive, noting that if they are not given a little extra height, they risk being fined for exceeding the allowed height by even one leaf above the railing. He requested some additional room to work with.

Mr. Gibbs clarified that the height should not exceed two feet above the rail or be at the rail. He stated that he would leave the decision for his deliberations but acknowledged the point made by the speaker.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Chair Gannon recalled the recent issue at 1813 Temple Hills, where the homeowner was fined each time, a leaf exceeded the height limit by just 6 inches.

She emphasized that to prevent this from happening again, she would be open to allowing a height of up to 3 feet above the railing, as was done for another project. She noted that she was open to hearing what other Board Members thought before making a final decision.

Mr. Gibbs expressed strong feelings about the height of the trees, stating that after carefully reviewing the privacy issue, he does not believe going above the railing is necessary for privacy. His preference is to keep the height at deck level or one foot above the railing, as he believes privacy is already protected. He explained that the trees are set back from the railing, providing sufficient screening even at the railing height. Given this, Mr. Gibbs stated that he cannot support allowing the trees to exceed the top of the railing, as it would block the view from the primary room of the residence. He emphasized that the View Preservation Ordinance is clear, and exemptions apply only to vegetation approved through the Design Review process, with established height limits. As such, the application must be considered within those constraints, independent of any prior view preservation rights. Mr. Gibbs stated that the two main issues are privacy and view equity. He believes privacy is sufficiently protected at or below the railing height, and view equity is maintained for the uphill property’s primary residence. Regarding the downstairs tenant, Mr. Gibbs noted that their primary view corridor is through a window facing the alley. He appreciated the reduction to 9 feet and believes this adjustment sufficiently protects the view corridor, achieving view equity. 5770
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 15 - March 13, 2025 Therefore, he supports keeping the trees at a height that does not exceed the railing and the adjustment for the downstairs tenant's view.

Ms. Coveny expressed her agreement with maintaining the tree height at the railing level, stating that it is easy to manage and clear for everyone. She noted that it would still provide privacy while allowing the upper level to retain any available ocean view.

For the lower level, she pointed out that there are limited view opportunities, and once the trees fill in, they will enhance privacy in that area. She also agreed with the suggestion of maintaining the 9-foot lemon tree for privacy in that unit. Ms. Coveny thanked Mr. Gibbs for clarifying the View Preservation responsibility, as she was uncertain about the details. She emphasized that keeping the trees trimmed as requested would be beneficial for both properties. She concluded by complimenting the roses in the flower boxes and expressed her support for the approach.

Ms. Thalman expressed appreciation for Mr. Gibbs' analysis of the situation, noting the importance of understanding that, despite the View Preservation, the primary issue was establishing a Design Review decision. She agreed with her colleagues, emphasizing the need for a compromise. She supported reducing the tree height to the railing, calling it an excellent compromise that would still provide privacy. Regarding the lemon tree, she agreed with bringing it down to 9 feet to help protect the lower unit's view. Ms. Thalman concluded that compromise is necessary, acknowledging that neither side may be fully satisfied, but it's a balanced solution.

Mr. Weil approached the issue with a fresh perspective, emphasizing that while view preservation is important, the Board's primary task is to balance view equity and privacy for both property owners. He noted that view preservation was primarily focused on the upper level, and during his site visit, he observed that the carport on the lower level was not a significant area for achieving a view. Mr. Weil agreed with Mr. Gibbs' analysis, stating that the trees should be at the railing height to ensure privacy, especially for the lower unit. He mentioned measuring the height at approximately 18.6 to 19 feet but emphasized the need for the elevation to be clearly memorialized in the final landscape plan. He suggested that the elevation be recorded accurately, as it would hold different meanings depending on whether it’s from grade or another reference point.

Mr. Gibbs interjected, asking how they could accurately memorialize the elevation. He then directed the question to Daniel and Garrett, asking if they had any ideas on how to proceed with documenting the elevation properly.

Mr. Latham suggested that they could base the elevation on the railing height, with some allowance for plus or minus adjustments.

Mr. Gibbs proposed that the height should not exceed three feet above the deck, given that the railing is three feet high. He emphasized that even if the railing height were increased to four feet in the future, the height should remain at three feet. He then asked Steve Kawaratani if he knew the current elevation.

Mr. Weil asked to chime in, expressing concern about setting a precedent based on a 5871
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 16 - March 13, 2025 marking from another property, which could change in the future. He recommended memorializing the current height as of today and ensuring it is included in the record for this application.

Mr. Gibbs agreed with the need to memorialize the height but questioned how they could effectively do that.

Mr. Weil suggested that they could simply inform staff that the elevation mark has been set and then confirm it on the landscape plan. He asked if this could be reflected in the resolution after the hearing.

Mr. Latham said yes.

Mr. Weil noted that palm trees are traditionally allowed to grow freely and that setting their height at the ridge line in the front yard is more appropriate. He emphasized the importance of marking this height on the landscape plan for both the protection of the property and the neighbor’s views. He expressed support for the proposed height and also agreed that the lemon tree should be trimmed to 9 feet, considering that to be an appropriate height.

Mr. Gibbs stated that the lemon tree height can be set at 9 feet from grade.

Discussion continued regarding memorializing the height of the railing and how that could be done.

City Attorney Mr. Donegan proposed that the elevation could be based on the current railing at the property located at 280 Cajon Street, as of March 13th, 2025, which he understood to be in line with Mr. Weil's suggestion.

Mr. Weil added, for staff to verify the elevation in the final document.

Ms. Coveny made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to adopt Resolution 24- 2559 approving Design Review 24-2550 for landscaping and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301, With the conditions that the trees along the property line between 280 and 276 Cajon do not exceed the height of the existing railing, and that staff will memorialize the elevation by including it on the landscape plan, the Eureka Lemon tree must be no taller than nine feet from grade. Additionally, as depicted in the version of the plan presented by the applicant at the meeting, the Brachychiton at the front of the property shall be maintained at the roof ridge height of 276 Cajon Street. The motion passed 5-0 by the following vote.

Motion MC Second JG Action APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

5.6 232 LA BREA STREET (MENDOZA), APN 053-125-18 APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 24-0484, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1086, AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15303]
5972
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 17 - March 13, 2025 City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner (949) 464-6626 [email protected] Project Applicant: Brian Wood, Designer, (714)803-9533, [email protected]

The applicant requests Design Review 24-0484 and a Coastal Development Permit 24-1086 for the construction of a new single-family structure (Unit B) and an addition to an existing single-family structure (Unit A) with additions exceeding 15 feet in height, grading, elevated decks, landscaping, and maintenance of non-conforming conditions for the existing unit in the R-2, Residential Medium-Density zone.

Disclosures: Chair Gannon mentioned that she visited the site. Ms. Thalman confirmed she also visited and had several prior discussions about the project. Mr. Gibbs shared that he met with William Mendoza and conducted a site visit. Ms. Coveny stated that she stopped by the site, though she had previously visited multiple times with the architect. Mr. Weil noted that he too visited the site.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett Wank, described the project and staff’s recommendations provided in the report.

Chair Gannon opened the public hearing.

Project Representative: Brian Wood described the project.

Public Testimony: None.

Rebuttal: None.

Board Questions: None.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Mr. Weil expressed his appreciation for the applicant team's efforts, noting that they had addressed many of the changes requested in a positive and accommodating manner. He specifically praised the lowering of the plate heights and the grade to help fit the two-story structure into the neighborhood. Mr. Weil acknowledged the challenges of the gentrifying area and believed the project would help set a more appropriate path while respecting the historical homes nearby. He also mentioned the challenges posed by the non-conforming structure downhill from the site but felt the design successfully addressed these issues, balancing the needs of the project with respect for the non-conforming property. Regarding the uphill neighbor’s view, he appreciated that the revised design preserved the view lines and privacy, effectively balancing view equity and privacy. Mr. Weil acknowledged concerns about property access due to non-conformities with the rear structure but felt that removing the elm tree and adding necessary retaining walls would provide reasonable access for development. In conclusion, he stated his support for the project, agreeing with the staff's outline and endorsing the proposal.

Ms. Coveny agreed with Mr. Weil’s remarks, noting that the project had come a long way and now displayed refined, high-quality architecture that fits well with the character of the 6073
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 18 - March 13, 2025 Laguna area. She also agreed that the project would likely set a positive precedent for future developments in the surrounding R2 zone. Her main concern was the planting of strawberry trees, particularly regarding their potential height. While acknowledging that the questioning period had closed, she expressed concern that these trees might grow too tall and impact the neighboring hillside property, specifically the side window. She suggested that a condition might be added to limit the height of these trees to prevent any future issues with code enforcement, as they could grow as tall as 20 feet. Ms. Coveny also highlighted the improvements made to address privacy issues, including the removal of balconies that were a concern for the lower units. She noted that the articulation in the design, such as the pushed-back family room, helped reduce the building's mass and scale.

While the project remained somewhat large, she felt that the design adjustments helped mitigate the impact. Regarding view equity, she acknowledged that the hillside neighbor’s view could not be preserved entirely but emphasized that the front view was maintained.

She concluded by stating that the project had met all necessary criteria.

Ms. Thalman expressed appreciation for how the design addressed most of the Board’s concerns, particularly regarding mass, scale, and height. She agreed with Mr. Weil’s comments, noting that his remarks were more detailed and that she could support the majority of what he had mentioned. She acknowledged the constraints of the site and understood the challenges the project faced, especially given the location in an R2 zone lot, which significantly impacted the design. Despite these challenges, she believed the project adhered to all Design Review guidelines and expressed her support for the project that evening.

Mr. Gibbs acknowledged that the project faced challenges due to the need for a new construction at the back of the site, which required shifting a significant portion of the program toward the front. He agreed with Mr. Weil's point that the project would set a new precedent for mass and scale in the neighborhood, particularly in the context of the R2 zoning. Mr. Gibbs emphasized that the mass and scale at the front of the building could potentially impact the character of the neighborhood, and he expressed some resistance to large two-story structures along the streets in North Laguna, as he believed it could alter the area’s character and not align with the guidelines. However, he appreciated the changes made to the design, particularly the 5-foot setback of the deck and great room, which helped reduce the mass and scale and provided necessary articulation. He admitted that he hadn’t fully studied the plans initially, but after reviewing these changes, he felt the project had made significant improvements. While Mr. Gibbs was still not entirely comfortable with the overall mass and scale, he recognized the project's effort to comply with the guidelines and accommodate neighbors' concerns, especially by reducing the building's height. He also noted that the project would likely influence the character of the neighborhood for years to come, setting a new standard. Ultimately, he expressed his support for the project, acknowledging that the improvements made a significant difference.

Chair Gannon acknowledged that the site is an R2 lot and appreciated the efforts made to address the Board’s concerns, particularly in minimizing the building’s impact on the street.

She praised the project team for making changes that minimized the building's impact at the street level, noting that this would set a precedent for the neighborhood. Chair Gannon acknowledged the project’s alignment with the neighborhood's needs and expressed her 6174
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 19 - March 13, 2025 support, mentioning that it was close to being approved last time. She confirmed that she had made the necessary findings from the previous meeting and was satisfied with the corrections made. In conclusion, she supported the project, agreeing with the majority of the other Board Members.

Mr. Weil asked Ms. Coveny if she was referring to the two trees in the front yard on La Brea Street, clarifying that one of the trees was a strawberry tree and the other was an olive tree.

Discussion ensued regarding the location of the trees.

Ms. Coveny inquired about the height of the trees, expressing concern about their impact on the front. She noted that she didn’t want the trees to be too short to maintain balance with the home, but if she were standing at the neighbor's front window, she believed the trees should not exceed eight feet in height.

Mr. Weil asked Chair Gannon if he could engage with the applicant team.

Chair Gannon reopened the public hearing.

Mr. Weil recommended swapping the positions of the trees, suggesting that the olive tree, which is positioned to grow taller, be placed further back. He proposed capping the strawberry tree at about 10 feet and the olive tree at 14 to 16 feet, asking if that height would be too high. He also mentioned that they could use a dwarf strawberry tree as an alternative.

Associate Planner, Mr. Wank clarified that there are two strawberry trees, one located towards the front of the property and the other situated between the two structures, confirming that the discussion was about the tree at the front of the property.

Mr. Weil clarified that the discussion was about the two front trees, LS1 and LS2, which are located side by side near the driveway.

Mr. Gibbs mentioned that he was looking at a picture and was happy to share it. He clarified that the window needing protection was the front window, specifically the one on the side, if that was the window being referred to.

Discussion ensued with the applicant regarding a window, tree heights, and the landscape plan.

Ms. Coveny expressed concern that the area still felt massive. She wanted to clarify that when entering the driveway, the area being planted to the right would be adjacent to the front yard of the neighboring property, not behind their house line. She noted that if the neighbors were standing at their front window looking towards the ocean, the trees would be in their view.

Ms. Coveny mentioned that the hedge separating the driveway from the neighboring house appeared to be about six or seven feet tall, which currently provides a clear view for the neighbors. While she felt the trees could be slightly taller than that, she cautioned against allowing them to grow too large, as it could lead to neighbor issues. 6275
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 20 - March 13, 2025 Mr. Gibbs requested the photo he sent to Interim Planning Manager Mr. Campbell be shared on the screen. The photograph was displayed.

Discussion continued regarding the trees and tree heights.

Ms. Coveny acknowledged that not everything aligns perfectly but encouraged the project team to consider the landscaping aspect more carefully. She suggested starting with taller plants near the house, around 8 to 10 feet, and then gradually staggering them down to about 6 feet as they get closer to the neighbor's view. This, she felt, would help avoid potential code enforcement issues while still providing some softening with landscaping. She emphasized that this adjustment wouldn't drastically impact the overall look but would improve the project’s harmony with the surroundings.

Mr. Gibbs asked Ms. Coveny if the tree was being planted right by the mailbox.

Ms. Coveny stated yes and noted that the section in question was in front of the house, but the angle was not aligned correctly.

Mr. Weil suggested swapping the positions of the two trees, with the olive tree moving closer to the house and the strawberry tree moving to the front, on the condition that the strawberry tree be a dwarf variety maintained at 6 to 8 feet and the olive tree be maintained at a height between 8 to 10 feet.

Ms. Coveny mentioned that the olive tree could go to 8 to 10 feet, as it would be positioned behind. However, she noted that the width of the tree was another consideration.

Mr. Weil asked the applicants if they would be amenable to those changes.

The applicant team agreed.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.
6376
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board - 21 - March 13, 2025 Chair Gannon stated that if the arborist advises against the changes, the applicants could always reapply for landscape modification.

Mr. Weil made a motion, seconded by Chair Gannon, to adopt Resolution 24- 0484 approving Design Review 24-0484 and Coastal Development Permit 24-1086 for a new single-family structure (Unit B) and addition to an existing single-family structure (Unit A) with additions exceeding 15 feet in height, grading, elevated decks, landscaping, and maintenance of nonconforming conditions for the existing unit and finding said action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 with the condition that on the landscape plan, the location of the strawberry tree near the driveway and the olive tree be swapped. Additionally, the strawberry tree should be replaced with a dwarf variety, maintained at a maximum height of 8 feet, and the olive tree should be conditioned to be maintained between 8 and 10 feet in height from grade. The motion passed 5-0.

Motion LW Second JG Action APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS
Coveny __Y__ Gibbs ___Y___ Weil ___Y___ Thalman ___Y___ Gannon ___Y___

6. OTHER BUSINESS
None.

7. ADJOURNMENT
Adjournment at 6:38 p.m. to the regularly scheduled Design Review Board meeting on March 27, 2025, at 5:00 p.m.
6477
City of Laguna Beach
Design Review Meeting for March 13, 2025
276 Cajon Drive - Agenda Item No. 5.5
Chair Gannon (51:10) Next is 5.5 located at 276 Cajon Drive 276 Cajon Drive, that's C A J O N Drive
Chair Gannon (51:27) Ex parte; I met with a property owner spoke and with Steve Kawaratani and I visited the apartments uh to the hillside to the right Board Member Gibbs (51:40) I met at the project with Steve Kawaratani I also walked over to the apartment at 280 Cajon and 282 Cajon and I spoke to both the tenants on the upstairs and went onto the deck of the upstairs for one of the tenants and then the downstairs tenant facing the alley I went into their apartment and spoke to them I don't have the names of any of the tenants hour
Board Member Coveny (52:24) I spoke with Steve Kawaratani and as I was walking the property as well as going to the adjacent properties
Pro Tem Thalman (52:31) I visited the site with Steve Kawaratani and Garth Jorgenson Board Member Weil (52:43) Same, I also met with the applicant as well in her home and I met with one of the tenants I believe his name was Alex but I didn't write his name down.

Chair Gannon (52:51) Alright, Mr. Latham
Daniel Latham, City Planner (52:55) Item 5.5 is for a project at 276 Cajon Drive. The project site is located in North Laguna. The project involves a landscaping plan and the recommendation is to conduct a public hearing deliberate on the maintained landscape dimensions and consider appropriate conditions to address view equity and privacy and ultimately adopt the resolution. That concludes the presentation.

Chair Gannon (53:18) Wonderful thank you Mr. Latham, do we have questions for staff? Board Member Gibbs (53:20) The only question I had is concerning the heights as set forth in the landscape plan. The ARC and I'm not a landscape person, is 40 feet high, am I reading that correctly Dan?
Daniel Latham, City Planner (53:43) Let me have a look
Steve Kawaratani (53:50) Can I answer that Daniel? Yeah, it's a palm tree and it's going to top off at that height
Board Member Gibbs (53:55) Oh is that the existing palm tree Attachment F
6578
Steve Kawaratani (54:00) Yes, it is
Chair Gannon (54:02) Let’s give the applicant their five minutes for presentation Board Member Gibbs (54:05) Okay that was my only question go ahead Chair Gannon (54:08) Any more questions for staff? Okay, you have five minutes for your presentation
Steve Kawaratani (54:10) Thank you. Daniel could you queue up my slides please? Good evening Board, my name is Steve Kawaratani. I'm a little bit better prepared for this one than the last marginally anyway so my slides will be up presently. The bottom line on this particular project is that a record of view was filed during escrow when the existing foliage was substantially lowered and the individuals who filed for the record of view did nothing wrong there was nothing unlawful about it but you know I do kind of consider it to be opportunistic and if you look at the record of view photograph which is superimposed in the middle of Larry Nokes letter, Larry summarizes what he was trying to accomplish earlier and with a prior property owner that record of view photograph shows Susan's roof, it shows the railing over in the left corner and it shows the ocean view so staff agreed with my argument that the record of view really couldn't be sustained when privacy was such a big concern so Mark Wiener made that decision and I met with Amber Dobson after that and in the subsequent slides we'll see what I had discussed with staff so the first slide with that little white slash was referring to the lemon tree and Amber asked that if we could lower it to uh protect the view from the lower unit and that tree ended up at 11 ft and Susan's been um in a very diligent manner been keeping this pruned for the past year um I was requested by a Board member to lower it another 2 feet that would take the lemon tree down to 9 ft and we were willing to do so. next slide: this is a picture of the remaining eight uh trees that form this privacy wall and you can see there are two slashes there that Amber made and they both have to do with the ridge of the two adjacent roofs so she asked if we could bring those down to that point that would be roughly 20 ft or 2 feet higher than the existing guard rail. Next slide: so this is a slightly updated plan that I think that Daniel had a chance to look at if you look on the right hand side below the photograph in red it names the particular tree, the Brachychiton. And I was asked by three board members if we could lower that tree to the point where it would not exceed the height of the existing ridge. So the bottom line for us on this project is we don't want to deny the Ocean View for the for the people who live in the apartment but you know we're pretty adamant that the property is not going to be livable either from Susan's master bedroom or from the ceremonial areas in back, the fire pit and the fire area so we're asking that our privacy be maintained by the Board establishing a height of the vegetation and to ensure that Susan can enjoy her property, thank you.
6679
Chair Gannon (58:47) Thank you. At this time any members of the public wish to speak on 276 Cajon Street?
Garth Jorgensen (59:00) Yeah is this working yes um good evening Board members and happy birthday to Jessica and Christine I want to thank you all and staff for working on this project, visiting the project and I know I've spoken with several of you about the issue my name is Garth Jorgensen I'm one of the owners of the uphill property in question, 280 Cajon Street. We purchased the property in 2002 and have enjoyed it for almost 25 years. I'm here to ask you to keep the trees at the heights as documented in the view preservation records of view with the city that was approved March 9th, 2021. Steve mentioned this was an opportunistic cut during an escrow but we had been maintaining those trees with the downhill neighbors there's been multiple owners for the better part of 20 years um for most of the 20 years the uh the tree height was kept, we're talking about the ones that are along the fence line and the fence line which is about 8 feet off the ground from the 276 property.

We worked with…the property has had four owners since we've had ownership and the first two owners over two decades worked with us to keep the tree levels and preserve both the ground level View and the second level View of our properties and so we would coordinate with the different owners and um often times you know contract with the landscapers to have those cut and then we'd share the cost of the services. The property changed hands in 2020 to a person, not the current owner, but a person that just refused to keep the trees lower. At that time is when we initiated the preservation process which Steve referred to as opportunistic and we documented a view both ground level view and upper level view that we enjoyed for almost 20 years. My concern with letting these trees grow to the 20 feet level that Steve is proposing is these are fast growing trees since they were trimmed down at the end of 2020 and they have grown 15 to 20 feet in the four years. So if these are let to grow 20 feet which is the railing on the second level, within a year they're going to have to be trimmed. How are these going to be trimmed? I don't get a sense that this owner or future owners are going to be trimmed because… what are they going to trim it from our upper level balcony? It's just it it's um we're at a financial loss here the views are the value of the property. Thank you for listening to me.

Chair Gannon (1:02:17) Any other speakers? No, okay you have three minutes Susan Shore (1:02:24) Okay hello, thank you for listening to our position. So when I moved into to this property few years ago I interacted with the previous owner, who was just described and she and the realtor told me so just to tell you where the trees were at that time they were um several feet above the top of the railing and that's how I saw the property and liked the property and bought the property you know with that was the property that I 6780
bought and it had sufficient privacy for me to enjoy the garden and that was one of the reasons I bought the property. Anyway the owner and the realtor did tell me that when that owner bought the house a year previous she was only there for about a year. The trees had also been higher, approximately at the height when I bought the house and when she was in escrow the owner went and cut the trees down to the level that he described, which is you know the top of the fence not even the top of the rail. She had a fit she almost had a heart attack when she moved in because no one had consulted her and so she hired a lawyer, Larry I think Steve has provided those notes to you. And the story that I was given was that this issue was resolved and there were there had been some interactions and she had hired an arborist to regrow the trees and then that required injecting some of the trees that were very slow Growers so then by the time I moved into the property the trees had grown to an acceptable height which was a little bit above the railing which would be where I would be happy with and in fact um when that was described to me, I hired the same arborist to come three months later or two months later to come and trim the trees being diligent and so I paid him several thousand dollars to do this and I thought that I was being a good neighbor and it was done and then several weeks after that I got cited by the city with you know showing this other View and so that's how it is that's how it was and in terms of pruning I would be very diligent about pruning because I'm as I do with the rest of the house and the garden I keep it up so I would definitely prune it once a year or if necessary or whatever is necessary.

Chair Gannon (1:05:07) Anything else? Does that conclude your comments? Okay do you guys have questions for the applicant…Board members do you have questions for the applicant ?
Board Member Gibbs (1:05:21) I have one question and I talked to Steve about this but 20ft I think you said and correct me if I'm wrong was approximately 2 feet above the rail Steve Kawaratani (1:05:30) That's correct
Board Member Gibbs (1:05:34) okay and are would you be willing to agree to do it at 18 ft in other words the height of the rail? The reason I asked is because I sat down on the deck and I sat down in the living room and if it goes higher than the railing it cuts off their View and a primary room so I want to know if you're willing to do that Steve Kawaratani (1:05:52) I think we have a lesson from 1813 Temple Hills Drive if we're not given a little extra height if we are one leaf higher than the top of that rail we're going to get fined so we'd like to have a little bit of room to work with if we could Tom Board Member Gibbs (1:06:00) So it's going to be not to exceed whether it's two feet above or at the rail and anyway I'll leave it for my deliberations but I get your point 6881
Steve Kawaratani (1:06:20) oh okay thank you
Chair Gannon (1:06:28) That's going to be my comments too um what was that address on Temple Hills
Steve Kawaratani (1:06:34) 1813
Chair Gannon (1:06:40) Yeah 1813 um we might recall was just recently and we're past the 14 days so we can discuss it that uh that homeowner got fined every time the leaf was 6 inches and it was just had to be one leaf so um to prevent that from happening again I'd be open to having I was going to say a three feet because that's what we gave the applicant for the other one so from the railing to 3 ft above but I'm open to hearing what other board members say
Board Member Gibbs (1:07:07) Why because I kind of feel strongly about this. I look carefully I went back today to see about the Privacy issue and whether going above the railing is necessary for the privacy and I don't think so and in fact my preference would be to have it at uh either you know the deck level or one foot above I think privacy is protected.

You know that said I think given what you said, I don't think I can support going higher than, not to exceed at the railing of the upper deck because it's a primary room for that Resident and if it goes above it blocks the view given that I don't see a serious privacy issue from the trees being lower than the railing, in fact the trees aren't right up against the railing they're set back so they provide a screen even if they're the height of the railing but from my view I think it needs to be not to exceed the top of the railing I can't support anything higher okay to deal with the view preservation issue, the code is very clear that an exemption from The View preservation ordinance is vegetation that was approved and this is a quote vegetation that was approved through the design review process and in which vegetation height limits were established pursuant to section 25.05.040 and that's the design review section of the ordinance so we have no choice but to consider the application and the application is independent of your view preservation rights so the way I look at it is as if the view preservation had not been done at all and so I balance and the two issues the two guidelines that issue here are privacy and view equity. I think privacy is protected with not to exceed that railing and even if you went lower it would still be protected but I think that the view necessary view is protected from the primary residence of the uphill up up uh the second floor tenant at the railing; can't go higher. The other issue is the downstairs tenant, I walked in their room their only primary Room with a View Corridor is out the window that goes along the alley and I appreciate you going down to 9 ft and I think that does the trick. 6982
You know it just needed some more trimming to protect that view corridor and again that would achieve View Equity at the 9 ft, so that's where I stand Board Member Coveny (1:10:16) I concur I agree that I think it's at the railing height it's an easy thing to maintain everybody can see it uh there's no wishy-washy well is that of bringing measuring tapes out it's pretty clearcut line it'll still provide privacy and it allows for what ocean view is available to the upper level. As far as the lower level there's really not a lot of view opportunities there so once that whole tree area fills in um you'll even have more privacy down there as long as you keep that as Tom mentioned the 9 foot lemon tree for that one unit but otherwise I think and I appreciate Tom defining the, what's it called, the preservation, yeah because I wasn't certain about our responsibility there. It seems like it makes sense that these trees are there it makes sense for both properties in my opinion and if you can kindly keep them trimmed to as they request I think it's going to give you what you need and I think your roses that you had in your flower boxes were lovely so that's my point.

Chair Gannon (1:11:26) Miss Thalman
Pro Tem Thalman (1:11:32) I appreciate board member Gibb's analysis of what we're deciding here I think that's important to know that even though there's a view preservation established that the critical issue tonight is establishing a design review decision and I would agree with my former colleagues I think this needs to be a compromise and I believe that the view if you if you reduce it down to the ridge, not the ridge, the railing... I'm sorry I think that's an excellent compromise it still achieves privacy uh and as was stated about the lemon tree to bring that down to 9 feet which at least helps on the lower unit I think that's a that's a compromise situation you know when either side is never exactly happy that's compromise so.

Board Member Weil (1:12:28) Yeah and I'm looking at this kind of with like fresh eyes right there is the view preservation but it's really the Board's determination of where it balances view equity and privacy as we try to move forward and give the balance to both Property Owners. I think when seeing the view preservation I note that it was really taken from the upper level right so when I was at the site and discussing view you know there's a carport on that lower level that you know I can't necessarily say that's the most significant part of a home to achieve a view is from the carport and also to balance the element of privacy that if the trees were at the lowest railing height at the driveway that would not provide privacy so for me I completely concur with board member Gibb's analysis that it really needs to be at the railing height and I think I had it measured I took a measuring tape it was at like 18’-6” 19 ft um but I would like that elevation to be memorialized from an elevation standpoint as it's recorded in the final minutes or the final landscape plan because we've got 18 and a 7083
half 19, 20 feet from grade that means something different I think it just needs to be marked at that elevation
Board Member Gibbs (1:13:49) Yeah how can we do that, that's the question. Daniel do you guys, Garrett do you have an idea how we can do that? No or we can just say the railing but the railing could of course change.

Daniel Latham (1:14:16) So you could go based off the railing elevation or plus or minus Board Member Gibbs (1:14:20) Why don't we do the deck no higher than three feet above the deck it's a three-foot railing because if they ever go to a 4 foot, I still want it at three feet.

By the way Steve do you know what the elevation of the deck is? Board Member Weil (1:14:23) Regardless we're setting a precedent of a marking up of another property that property could change that's why I'm recommending that we memorialize where that height is as of today and put it in the record for this application Board Member Gibbs (1:14:35) I agree the question is how do we do that.

Board Member Weil (1:14:41) So we just tell staff that's our mark and then confirm it on their landscape that elevation on their landscape plan posts the hearing in the resolution can we is that right?
Daniel Latham, City Planner (1:14:48) Yes
Board Member Gibbs (1:14:54) Okay no I think I agree with you 100% Board Member Weil (1:15:01) Okay I lost track I had one more point to make on that height thing
Board Member Gibbs (1:15:05) Are you talking about the palm tree? Board Member Weil (1:15:07) No, the palm trees we traditionally let those grow. The front yard setting the height on those at the rid line I think is more appropriate we're looking at the landscape plan I think we need to mark that one on this set of landscape documents it's at your protection and at the protection of the views of the neighbor/ Okay yeah so I'm supportive of that height there's one more point the lemon tree at 9 feet I think is appropriate as well
Board Member Gibbs (1:15:07) We can do 9 feet from grade Board Member Weil (1:15:07) From grade that one's fine
Chair Gannon (1:15:42) So are we going to direct staff to get the measurement from the railing
7184
Board Member Gibbs (1:15:47) Patrick how do we do that we leave a blank in the resolution or do we direct?
Patrick Donegan, Deputy City Attorney (1:15:47) I think what could also work is I believe this is what Board Member Weil was saying is that you guys can base it off of the railing as it exists as of March 13th, 2025 at the property at 280 Cajon Street Board Member Weil (1:16:11) And staff to just verify the elevation in the final document Board Member Gibbs (1:16:13) okay I think that works for me Board Member Weil (1:16:14) I can do the motion
Board Member Coveny (1:16:16) I'm gonna do a motion, it's as easy one that's why. I make a motion for approval for a property at 276 Cajon, Resolution 24-2550, approving design review 24-2550 for landscaping and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 with the condition of approval that the trees along the back property line do not exceed the railing height of the existing property and staff will memorialize that by providing elevation on the plan
Daniel Latham, City Planner (1:16:49) I'm just going to clarify it's not necessarily the back property line it's the property line between 280 and 276 Cajon, that we should clarify Board Member Coveny (1:17:02) Side property line between 280 and 276 Cajon Board Member Gibbs (1:17:10) Right and the only thing it would be the trees 1 two 3 four five six seven eight trees along that property line as depicted in the landscaping plan and then 9 feet above grade for the lemon tree. And in addition, do we have to do the ridge line for the tree in front?
James Campbell, Planning Manager (1:17:37) We have a revised plan that was shown here this evening that depicts that tree so we'll use that particular plan and replace it with the plan that's in your packet. They're identical but for that one, so we don't need to address it. It'll be part of the plan.

Chair Gannon (1:17:44) I'll second that
Board Member Weil (1:17:57) May we have a discussion would we want to require biannual trimming
Board Member Gibbs (1:18:02) Well it's a not to exceed so no I don't want to, I don't know how fast those trees grow it's a not to exceed which means if it does exceed it you can call code enforcement so it's good to keep it a little lower okay 7285
Chair Gannon (1:18:11) Keep it maintained which is why I wanted to have a range. Okay so I had a motion, I seconded.

Maria Ballard (1:18:24) Board member Coveny? Yes; Board Member Gibbs? Yes; Board Member Weil? Yes; Chair Pro Tem Thalman? Yes; Chair Gannon? Yes; motion carried, thank you.
7386
Attachment G
7487
7588

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

LAGUNA BEACH CITY COUNCIL
The Laguna Beach City Council will hold an in-person Public Hearing in the City Council Chambers, located in City Hall at 505 Forest Avenue, Laguna Beach, to consider:

Appeal of approval of Design Review 24-2550, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for landscaping at 276 Cajon Street in the R-2 (Residential Medium Density) zone. Design Review is required to establish vegetation dimensions.

Applicant: Susan Shore
A person has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project on the following summarized grounds:
inadequate notice and lack of timely stakeholder engagement; failure to seek compromise or consider the concerns of affected parties; and unclear conditions regarding vegetation height.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, May 20, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Daniel Latham, Associate Planner (949) 464-6612 or [email protected]. Comments may be made in writing prior to the hearing (when emailed or mailed to the City Clerk’s office) or in-person in Council Chambers during the public hearing. In order to allow sufficient time for members of the City Council and staff to review and consider your comments, written comments will be accepted for consideration up until the close of business (i.e., 5:30 p.m.) on the business day before the date on which this public hearing is scheduled; however, it is recommended they be submitted to the City Clerk’s office on or before 5:00 p.m. five days prior to the scheduled hearing.

Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if you challenge this application in court, the issues raised shall be limited to those raised in the public hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Laguna Beach prior to, or at, the public hearing.

CEQA: This project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 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 not expansion of existing or former use.

COASTAL: This project is located in the Coastal Zone. This project is located within a non-appealable area of the Coastal Zone. The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07. The review procedure identified in Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.07.012(B)(3) applies to any such determination.

Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons with a disability who require a disability-related modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, may request such modification or accommodation from the City Clerk’s Office at (949) 497-0705 (telephone) or (949) 497-0771 (facsimile). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to assure accessibility to the meeting.

Property Owners within 300 ft./ Tenants within 100 ft./ Property Posted/ Publish Date: 5/9/2025 Attachment H
7689
Attachment I
7790
7891
7992
8093
8194
8295
8396
8497
8598
8699
87 100
88 101
89 102
90 103
91 104
92 105
93 106
94 107
95 108
96 109
Attachment J
97 110
98 111
99 112
100 113
101 114
Date
Signature
Affidavit of Posting and
Early Neighborhood Certification

INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSTING

1. The Public Notice must be affixed to a stake or structure. Do not attach notice to trees, telephone poles, etc. To protect the notice from exposure to weather, please consider laminating the notice or enclosing it in a plastic sleeve.

Reduced color elevations are also required to be posted only for proposals of new single-family residences, major remodels, and 50% aggregate additions.

2. The Public Notice must be placed in a prominent and conspicuous location at the front of the property, clearly visible from a public street and accessible to any member of the public.

3. Pursuant to LBMC 25.05.065(E), the notice must be posted on the project site not less than ten calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing.

4. Once the Public Notice has been posted on site, a photo of the posted notice along with this completed form must be provided to staff. Failure to complete this requirement not less than ten calendar days prior to the date of the public hearing will result in your project being continued to a later hearing date.

Projects continued to any additional hearings shall be re-staked and re-certified at least 14 calendar days before the hearing if instructed. A continuance fee shall be applied.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
The undersigned hereby certifies that he/she has posted the public hearing notice in a conspicuous location or caused it to be posted in a conspicuous place on each parcel of property that is to be considered at the public hearing pursuant to LBMC

25.05.065(E). For projects that are required to be staked, the undersigned also hereby certifies that the project has been staked and that the staking has been certified at least 21 calendar days prior to the Design Review Board hearing, pursuant to LBMC

25.05.040(C)(2)(a) or 14 calendar days prior to the Administrative Design Review meeting, pursuant to LBMC 25.05.040(B)(3)(c).

Project Location/APN
Hearing Date
EARLY NEIGHBORHOOD COMMUNICATION CERTIFICATION – LBMC 25.05.040(C)(1) The City requires each applicant to take reasonable steps to contact neighbors within 300 feet of the proposed project prior to a hearing before the Design Review Board. Such early, informal communication with neighbors, preferably prior to deciding on a final design, often resolves potential conflicts so that the formal Design Review process can be expedited.

I hereby certify that I have made efforts to contact all property owners within 300 feet of the subject property by taking the following action(s):

Issues discussed with neighbors were:

Printed Name Signature

APPLICANT MUST MAKE SUBJECT PROPERTY ACCESSIBLE FOR DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBER VISITS If scheduled for a Design Review Board hearing, Design Review Board members may reach out to schedule a site visit after receiving the agenda packet one week prior to the scheduled hearing. Please prepare to allow the Board members entrance onto the property.

Revised 5-15-2024
102 115
275 Cajon St./053-125-04 3.13.25 Steve Kawaratani 3.1.25 Property owner met with adjacent apartment tenants View corridor Attachment K
103 116

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE POSTING OF PROPERTY

1. The notice must be attached to a stake or structure and mounted on rigid cardboard. Do not attach the notice to trees, telephone poles, etc. If the notice is unprotected and exposed to weather, it must be wrapped or enclosed with plastic facing.

2. The notice must be placed in a prominent and conspicuous location, clearly visible from a public street.

3. On large properties, more than one notice may be required.

4. The notice must be posted at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing.

5. The applicant must sign and return the lower portion of this page after posting the notice on the property.

6. The applicant must provide a photo of the notice posted on site at least ten (10) calendar days prior to the hearing.

NOTES: ANY DEVIATION FROM THE ABOVE REQUIREMENTS MAY CAUSE A DELAY IN THE SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARING.

AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING OF NOTICES
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I have posted or caused to be posted, in a conspicuous place, a notice on each parcel of property to be considered in the public hearing, pursuant to the resolution of the City Council of Laguna Beach.

Property Location:  $BKPO 4USFFU
Date of Posting

Photo Submitted (Y/)
Signature: ____________________________________________________ Printed Name:
4UFWF
,BXBSBUBOJ
Date:

mitted (Y/)
__________________________
104 117

PROOF OF PUBLICATION
(2015.5 C.C.P.)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Orange
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the action for which the attached notice was published.

I am a principal clerk of the Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot, which was adjudged a newspaper of general circulation on June 19, 1952, Cases A24831 for the City of Newport Beach, County of Orange, and State of California. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and complete copy as was printed and published on the following date(s):
0D\

I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated at Fountain Valley, California on this WK day of 0D\. ____________________________________
[signature]
10540 Talbert Avenue
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
ϴϬϬϬϴϵϵ- Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot

_____________________
[signature
105 118
Sold To:

City Of Laguna Beach - CA11071920
505 Forest Ave
Laguna Beach,CA 92651-2332
Bill To:

City Of Laguna Beach - CA11071920
505 Forest Ave
Laguna Beach,CA 92651-2332
ϴϬϬϬϴϵϵ- Newport Harbor News Press Combined With Daily Pilot

106 119

CITY COUNCIL ORDER OF TESTIMONY FOR APPEALS

AND REQUESTS FOR REVIEW OF PROJECTS
Purpose: The City Council is committed to assuring that members of the public have the opportunity to speak to any meeting agenda item before final action on projects. This Order of Testimony establishes the right of persons who specifically wish to speak on projects appealed to or otherwise reviewed by the City Council.

Procedures: There are three types of hearings conducted by the City Council: 1) the appellant is person opposed to the project, 2) the appellant is the applicant, and 3) the project was called up for review by a member of the City Council or the City Manager. The procedures below provide the order in which testimony is considered and the allotted time for public comment. The procedure for each hearing shall be provided as the first attachment to the agenda bill.

I. Appellant is Person Opposed to Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The appellant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

3. Any persons in support of the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

4. The applicant has 5 minutes to speak in opposition to the appeal.

5. Any other persons in opposition to the appeal may speak for 3 minutes each.

6. The appellant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

Attachment L
107 120