Board upholds CEQA exemption for Rancho Santa Fe slope landscaping, requires indemnity and security

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday denied an appeal and upheld a County Planning and Development Services (PDS) CEQA exemption that cleared a minor‑deviation permit to update landscaping on a slope in Rancho Santa Fe.

PDS planner Mike Johnson presented the item and said the approval covered a minor deviation to a previously approved site plan, consisting of replacement landscaping on a graded slope. The plan approved 76 Cape honeysuckle plants and 18 California pepper trees on an existing landscaped slope, he said; no new grading was proposed and the plan matched landscaping in surrounding properties and the specific plan. Johnson told the board the Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District had reviewed and approved the plan and that the project met the criteria for a Class 4 (minor alteration) CEQA exemption.

An adjacent property owner filed the appeal, arguing the exemption did not apply in a scenic, visually sensitive area and citing potential grading and scenic impacts. The appellant’s attorney argued the exemption’s exceptions should apply. PDS replied that the project involves replacement landscaping on a previously graded slope, that no new grading or scenic tree removal was proposed as part of the minor deviation, and that the exemption’s listed examples include small landscaping changes and minor trenching.

Staff also recommended that the board require the applicant to sign a defense and indemnity agreement and to provide security if litigation is filed, citing prior litigation history connected to landscaping disputes on the site. PDS recommended a $150,000 security to protect the county in the event of litigation; staff described typical security ranges and said the board decides the form and amount.

Supporters of the landscaping approval, including the property owners represented by Chelsea Candler, told the board the item was a routine landscaping matter and urged denial of the appeal. The appellant’s representative, attorney Andrea Contreras, argued the exemption exceptions applied and submitted materials in support of the appeal. Another caller objected to the use of “California pepper tree” in the plan and called the species invasive.

After discussion, Vice Chair Lawson Reimer moved to deny the appeal, require the applicant to enter into a defense and indemnity agreement and to post the recommended security if litigation is filed; Supervisor Joel Anderson seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

What was decided

The board denied the CEQA appeal and upheld PDS’s determination that the project is exempt under relevant CEQA categorical exemptions for minor alterations. The board also directed PDS to require a signed defense and indemnity agreement and a $150,000 security within 10 days of litigation filing; PDS recommended rescission of the minor deviation approval if the applicant fails to meet those conditions.

Why it matters

The decision resolves a local neighbor dispute that escalated to a CEQA appeal. Staff said the exemption was appropriate because the landscaping proposal replaced vegetation on a previously graded slope, matched the specific plan and the fire‑district‑approved plan, and did not propose new grading or removal of scenic trees in the scope of the minor deviation.

Speakers quoted in this article come from the public record of the Jan. 28, 2025 board meeting.