Agenda packet, second session — Laguna Beach City Council, November 18, 2025 (part 6 of 6)

California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Project” or “Board Approval”). (The February 13, 2025 Board Staff Report, Resolution No. 24-2113, Plans, Public Comments, Minutes, and Transcript, are attached as Attachments 3-8, respectively.) On April 3, 2025,5 Rhett and Sherry Schiffman (the “Appellants”), the neighboring property owners of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, filed a notice of appeal of the Board Approval (the “Appeal”). (Attachment 2.) The Appellant contends that the conduct and deliberations of the Board during the February 13, 2025 hearing were “highly irregular in many ways,” citing eight contentions. To facilitate the City Council’s consideration of this matter, this agenda report provides an overview of the City Council appeal procedures; the Board’s public hearing; and City staff’s responses to the Appellant’s contentions in the Appeal.

LBMC Section 25.05.070 requires certain forms of public notice for an appeal. Public notice was duly provided to consider the Appeal of the Project at the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.065. Notices were mailed to owners and occupants within a 300-foot and 100- foot radius of the Property, respectively, posted on the Property, and published in a newspaper of general circulation (Attachment 9). The public hearing was thereafter continued to November 18, 2025 in order to allow the Appellants and Applicant additional time to come to an agreement on the matter.

CITY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES
A. Standards of Review
Pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.070, all design review permit decisions of the Board may be appealed to the City Council by the Applicant or any owner of property within 300 feet of the subject property.

In particular, in reversing a decision, there must be three affirmative votes approving the reversal by adoption of a resolution of denial. (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(a).) In upholding a decision, the City Council may also choose to “modify the proposed project or conditions of project approval, by making them more restrictive or may add more restrictive conditions of approval upon the adoption of a resolution and without the need for a finding of error or an abuse of discretion.”6 (LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(3)(b).) Further, pursuant to LBMC § 25.05.070(E)(2)(d), the City Council’s review is limited to “the plans that were the subject of the decision or determination by the approval authority”; if new plans are submitted, the City Council “shall not consider or act on” them but may determine to remand those plans to the approval authority “for further proceedings pursuant to such direction as may be given the City Council.” 5 Upon receipt of the appeal, the City informed the Appellants that the appeal was not timely under LBMC Section 25.05.070.

The Appellants then filed a Verified Petition For Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief challenging, among other things, the City’s determination that their appeal was untimely. After discussions with the Applicant, it was agreed to that in exchange for the Appellants dismissing the lawsuit, the Applicant would agree to this appeal before the City Council on the merits.
6 An abuse of discretion is defined as the following: (1) the City has "not proceeded in the manner required by law"; (2) the City "decision is not supported by the findings"; or (3) the "findings are not supported by the evidence." (Civil Code § 1094.5.) Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 3 of 14 ends

B. Design Review
LBMC Section 25.05.070(E)(2) sets forth the procedures and review criteria for appeals of design review decisions. With respect to the standard of review for those decisions, subsection (E)(2)(a) provides:

If the decision or determination was supported by four or more affirmative votes of the approval authority, upon hearing the appeal or request for review, the city council shall be limited to the grounds specifically stated in the notice of appeal, if an appeal was filed, and to the evidence that was presented to the approval authority. The city council shall not conduct a de novo hearing, shall not reweigh the evidence, and shall not exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence. The city council shall consider whether the approval authority proceeded in the manner required by law and whether the decision or determination is supported by substantial evidence.

There shall be a presumption that the decision or determination made by the approval authority was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion. The appellant, if there is one, shall have the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence, including plans, presented.

Accordingly, in its consideration of DR 24-2113, the City Council is limited to the evidence that was presented to the Board and cannot reweigh the evidence or exercise its independent judgment and discretion as to the evidence.9 In other words, this is de novo review but not a de novo hearing. There is a presumption that the Board’s decision was reasonable, valid, and not an abuse of discretion, and the Appellant has the burden of proof of demonstrating otherwise by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., making it more likely than not).

If the Applicant proposes new plans that result in a redesign, the City Council shall not consider such plans; however, the City Council may (but is not required to) remand such plans to the Board for further review.

Notwithstanding that the City Council cannot review proposed new plans, the City Council can uphold the approval of DR 24-2113 subject to more restrictive conditions of approval that are effectuated through the provision of new plans; 10 in such event, remand is not required.

C. City Council Options
The City Council has numerous options in consideration of this matter, which are as follows:

1. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-2113, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15304;
9 Attached to this staff report is the evidence presented at the March 13, 2025, public hearing discussed below. For reference, this includes the Board Staff Report [Attachment 3] and Board Resolution [Attachment 4], Plans [Attachment 5], Public Comments [Attachment 6], Minutes (Attachment 7), and Transcript [Attachment 8]. 10 By way of example only, the City Council could choose to uphold a DR decision but impose a condition requiring that a wall be moved in three feet (3’) in order to support a view equity finding. In such event, new plans would be required to effectuate the condition, but the plans would not need to be remanded to the DRB or Planning Commission for further consideration.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 4 of 14 ends

2. Adopt the attached Resolution upholding the decision of the Board to conditionally approve DR 24-2113, and finding the Project categorically exempt from CEQA under State CEQA Guideline Section 15304, but modifying the Resolution to include more restrictive conditions of approval;

3. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution overturning the Board’s decision and denying 24-2113, with findings in support of overturning the decision and denial; or

4. Direct staff to prepare and return at a future meeting with a Resolution remanding 24-2113 to the Board, with findings in support of the remand and further direction to the Board.

DISCUSSION
A. FEBRUARY 13, 2025 Design Review Board Hearing

1. Staff Presentation
City staff presented an overview of the Project and staff’s recommendations in the staff report, and noted that staff had received view equity concerns from an adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive.

2. Board Ex Parte Disclosures
During the Board members’ review of the project, the Board members toured the Property and met with the Applicant, Project representative, and neighbors. Specifically, the Board members made the following ex parte disclosures:

Commenter Summary of Comment Minutes
Page Nos.

Board Member
Coveny
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.

Board Member
Gibbs
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.

Board Member
Thalman
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.

Board Member
Weil
Met with Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy), spoke with neighbor to the Property (Rhett Schiffman).
p. 7 of 19.

Board Chair
Gannon
Emailed the Applicant (Project representative and property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy).
p. 7 of 19.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 5 of 14 ends

4. Applicant Presentation
During the Applicant presentation, Steve Kawaratani spoke on behalf of the Applicant. His presentation is summarized below.

Applicant Summary of Comment Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Steve
Kawaratani
(Applicant)
Noted that the two Ficus trees and one Pittosporum Silver Sheen tree were not on the previously approved landscape plan for the Property, and that he was requesting that they be approved. Mr. Kawaratani noted that a survey done for the property showed that the two Ficus trees were on the other side of a previously existing wood fence. This fence had been considered the property line, but it was in fact located on the Applicant’s property. The revised landscape plan showed this area and the two Ficus trees to remain, and he asked the Board that the Ficus trees be allowed to grow up to 25 feet in height and pruned twice a year, and for the Silver Sheen to be allowed a maximum height of 20 feet.
p. 1-2 of 21
[Kawaratani]

5. Public Testimony
During the public hearing, three individuals provided public testimony. The public testimony is summarized below:

Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Rhett
Schiffman
Stated that he had filed a code enforcement complaint regarding overgrown vegetation at the project location that threatened his home during storms, and that the existing Ficus trees that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet tall at the time. He indicated that two unpermitted Ficus trees and one overgrown Evergreen Ash were the primary reasons for this hearing. He indicated that these trees adversely impacted a view corridor at both the upper and lower levels of his home, affecting both ocean and Catalina Island views. He requested that the Board limit the height and width of the Ficus trees such that they do not go beyond his upper deck, and that the Pittosporums and Evergreen Ash be limited to below his hedge.
p. 2-4 of 21
[Rhett
Shiffman]
Sherry
Schiffman
Stated that the Project affects their view and did not think their neighbor's privacy is an issue.
p. 5 of 21
[Sherry
Schiffman]
Spencer Harris Expressed support for the Project. p. 5-6 of 21.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 6 of 14 ends

6. Applicant Rebuttal
Commenter Summary of Comment
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Vella Reddy Stated that the tree height and view concerns by the Schiffmans’ dated back to 2010 and was the subject of a lawsuit which has since been dismissed. The trees have since been pruned and they would like to keep the trees at a height that will preserve their privacy. p. 7 of 21
[Vella Reddy]
Steve
Kawaratani
Stated the owners want to ensure the neighbors maintain their views, but that they also want to maintain their privacy. He would like the height of only three trees to be modified to ensure that his clients do not lose their privacy and that they do not continue to have issues with code enforcement.
p. 7 of 21
[Kawaratani]

7. Board Questions and Staff Responses
During Board deliberations, the Board asked questions and staff provided responses, as reflected in the table below:

Commenter Discussion
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Board Member
Gibbs
Asked if the proposed landscape changes summarized on page six of the staff report were different from what was being discussed. Staff stated that the summary in the staff report compares the prior Board-approved plan to the changes that were being requested as part of this Project. p. 10 of 21
[Gibbs]
Board Member
Gibbs
Asked if the current application was for existing trees that do not appear on the previously approved plans. Staff concurred. p. 14 of 21.

Board Members
Thalman and
Weil
Asked for clarification of the trees/hedge height. Staff stated the Brazilian pepper hedge was to be maintained at 15 feet and the remaining 16 trees be 20 feet or less.
p. 14-16 of

21. Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 7 of 14 ends

8. Board Deliberations
Topic Discussion
Related
Finding
Transcript
Page Nos.
[Commenter]
Height of trees
Weil stated that heights could be thought of in
terms of “zones” across different portions of the
rear yard, with view corridors provided across the
lower portion of the lot with vegetation
maintained closer to 20 feet to open up the view,
whereas the vegetation heights would need to
consider the Applicant’s privacy for landscaping
situated between the two properties. Gibbs
agreed, noting that the zones are “kind of built in
because the backyard gradually goes down.

So…making height limits on those Ficus will do
the graduation.” Board member Gibbs stated that
the Appellant has “an expansive view.”
Privacy and
View Equity
p. 14-15 of 21.
[Weil, Gibbs]
View Corridor
Weil stated the main concern is privacy and view
corridors. He would like the board to collaborate
and determine in the interest of all parties the trees
height and maintenance. Chair Gannon and Mr.

Gibbs agreed.

Privacy and
View Equity
p. 14-15 of 21
[Weil, Gibbs,
Gannon]
The Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2113 approving the Project, subject to the following three Project-specific conditions:

1. The height of the landscaping would be consistent with the heights indicated on page six of the staff report.

2. The three Ficus trees (Weeping Figs) were allowed to be a minimum height of 20 feet and maximum of 25 feet.

3. The three Ficus trees were required to be maintained twice a year in April and October.

RESPONSE TO APPEAL
As noted above, the Appellant submitted an Appeal of the Board’s decision (Attachment 2). The City Council is tasked with evaluating the issues raised in the Appeal, as to whether the Board abused its discretion in approving the Project (as explained in the Standard of Review section). Below is a summary of the appeal contentions and the staff response.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 8 of 14 ends

1. “This was a CE-Mandated Board meeting after the Applicants received a notice of violation for among other things, creating a public nuisance, and three subsequent citations for continuous violations and failure to pay a fine. The findings included plant debris, rodents’ nests, several trees above the height limits, 8 or 9 trees not on the approved landscape plan with at least three of them considered a fire hazard. These trees severely impacted the Schiffmans’ ocean and Catalina views. Most of the violations have since been addressed by Code Enforcement, but the DRB was to address 2 remaining illegal Ficuses that were planted in a view corridor to Catalina on the original landscape plans where only ground cover was meant to be.”
Staff response:

As noted on page three in the staff report prepared for the February 13, 2025 Design Review Board meeting (Attachment 3), the modification to the previously approved landscape plan was a result of a code enforcement case on the property. Staff recommended approval, however it was also noted on page one of the report that staff recommended that the “Board deliberate on the view equity and landscaping criteria and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive.” The Applicant was required to submit a Design Review application for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan, pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(1)(q), and receive approval from the Board in order to resolve the pending Code Enforcement case. The Applicants did submit their project and received the required approval for the modifications to their approved landscape plan as of February 13, 2025, when the Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the project. The Board specifically considered view equity for the project and concluded view equity was met.

There is substantial evidence supporting the Board Approval of DR 24-2113, based on the evidence presented, including the staff report and presentation. Regarding the View Equity criterion, the Board Approval, as documented in Resolution No. 25-2113, gave due consideration to the proposed vegetation heights to ensure that view equity was met. Moreover, in its conditional approval of the Project, the Board properly considered the Appellant’s views across the Applicant’s property when it determined to condition three Ficus trees on the Property to a minimum height of 20 feet and a maximum height of 25 feet. Board member Weil noted that the vegetation heights could be thought of in terms of “zones” across different portions of the rear yard, with view corridors provided across the lower portion of the lot with vegetation maintained closure to 20 feet to open up the view, whereas the vegetation heights would need to consider the Applicant’s privacy for landscaping situated between the two properties. (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Weil, p. 14 of 21.) Board member Gibbs concurred, and noted that the zones are “kind of built in because the backyard gradually goes down. So…making height limits on those Ficus will do the graduation.” (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 15 of 21.) In the context of creating view corridors and addressing privacy concerns, Board member Gibbs stated that the Appellant has “an expansive view.” Although the three Ficus trees were not on the previously approved landscape plan, the Board granted design review approval for a modified landscape plan, in accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q). The Board found that the vegetation heights achieved view equity, and this decision was based on the topographic conditions of the Property, and balanced consideration for the Applicant’s privacy and the Appellant’s views.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 9 of 14 ends

2. “The scheduled DRB hearing on the Applicants’ project was conducted on February 13, 2025; however, the DRB failed to issue its Decision or to give the Appellants notice of this Decision until March 25, 2025. Attached as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Decision and the email from the City’s Staff dated March 25th.” Staff response:

The Board voted 5-0 at the February 13, 2025 public hearing to conditionally approve DR 24-2113 for modifications to the landscape plan. The Appellants were in attendance and provided comments during the public comment period of the hearing, and would have been aware that the Project had received conditional approval at the conclusion of the hearing. Board Member Gibbs, the maker of the motion to grant DR 24- 2113 and which carried by a 5-0 vote, read into the record certain additional conditions of approval. (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 20 of 21.) These conditions were correctly incorporated into the Board’s Resolution No. 24-2113, which was subsequently signed by the Board chair, Jessica Gannon, and Interim Planning Manager Jim Campbell. The City does not provide additional notice to neighbors regarding either approval or denial of any matter before the Board. Further, any assertion that the DRB’s decision is decision is not final until the resolution is executed by pertinent DRB members or staff is not supported by law – the decision is final when the DRB publicly deliberates, makes a motion, and votes on an item.

3. “Applicants’ advocate and agent at the hearing, Mr. Steve Kawaratani, testified that he provided ex-parte assistance to the staff member assigned to this project (Garrett Wank) who used Mr. Kawaratani’s input in order to prepare his Staff Report and that he also held exparte meetings with Board members. Further, as a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals, both City staff and the DRB members deferred to Mr. Kawaratani to provide them with key “facts” on which they relied to recommend and approve the project. However, many of the key facts provided to the DRB and City staff by Mr. Kawaratani were misstatements of the facts. Among other misrepresentations, Mr. Kawaratani testified that the Schiffmans (appellants) themselves planted the two “illegal” trees that was the basis for this meeting. This is not so, as photographic evidence reveals. Mr. Kawaratani also testified that the Appellants harassed the Applicants by complaining to Code Enforcement that their plantings violated the 2012 approved landscaping plans. The Appellants did not harass Applicants; they merely reported the code violations. These statements were false and highly prejudicial.”
Staff response:

Mr. Kawaratani, acting in his capacity as the Applicant’s representative for the landscape plan, was in communication with staff in regards to the project scope and details during the entitlement process. These conversations are necessary and routine for all projects that are submitted for the City’s review, and are intended to ensure that staff has a clear and complete understanding of the application. Staff will then prepare an independent analysis of the application and present a recommendation to the Board, based on staff’s review of the information and on the basis of the required findings for approval or denial. These communications do not constitute “ex-parte” communications, as staff does not make any decisions on any Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 10 of 14 ends

project before the Board. Staff is regularly in contact with both project applicants as well as project proponents/opponents. This accessibility by staff is in no way inappropriate.

This fence had been considered the property line, but it was in fact located on the Applicant’s property. The revised landscape plan showed this area and the two Ficus trees to remain, and he asked the Board that the Ficus trees be allowed to grow up to 25 feet in height and pruned twice a year, and for the Silver Sheen to be allowed a maximum of 20 feet in height. The Board then opened the hearing to public comment during which Rhett Schiffman who resides at 1843 Temple Hills Drive spoke first. He noted that the trees were well above 40 feet in height and that they had spoken with Code Enforcement. He stated that the two Ficus trees were planted directly in a view corridor of Catalina Island and that there were seven other trees not on the approved landscape plan which had since been removed. Chairperson Gannon asked Mr. Schiffman if they had planted the two Ficus trees and Mr. Schiffman stated they had not planted those trees. The Applicants were provided three minutes for rebuttal of public comments. The Board asked a few questions of the Applicant and staff regarding the history of the project, but the Board did not consider whether the Applicant or Appellant had planted the trees in their deliberation on the project, nor does the record indicate that the code enforcement history influenced the outcome of the hearing. Further, attempting to police or correct any alleged misstatement by the applicant (or any public testimony for that matter) is not a priority of the DRB. The DRB considers the entirety of the record and exercises its discretion in reviewing each project individually. The record does not indicate that any allegations of harassment were considered in the decision-making process. The Board’s deliberations focused on the relevant design review criteria, and specifically view equity and privacy. To best satisfy both of these criteria, the Board granted a conditional approval, restricting the maximum height of the existing Ficus trees while also setting a minimum height for these same trees in order to provide privacy between the Applicant and Appellant.

4. “Although Mr. Wank and his manager, Amber Dobson, had committed to the Schiffmans that they would conduct a site visit to verify the accuracy of the landscape plan, this never happened (apparently believing he could rely on Mr. Kawaratani’s input). The landscape plan remains inaccurate.

Despite the complexity of this case and repeated misrepresentations on the revised landscape plan by Mr. Steve Kawaratani, to the Appellant’s knowledge, the City’s arborist (or other independent landscape expert) was not consulted as part of the staff’s investigation, and, apparently, he did not visit the site or provide input to the Staff Report as to whether the Applicants’ requests were necessary or would achieve their stated goals and what would be the impact on the Schiffmans. The landscape plan remains inaccurate to this day with other illegal tress on the property not capture on the plan.” Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 11 of 14 ends

Staff response:

It is unknown whether Garrett Wank or Amber Dobson conducted a site visit. However, City staff did communicate with Code Enforcement staff, and staff was aware of the existing site conditions. The City Arborist does not review private development applications as part of his responsibilities. The February 13, 2025 staff report (Attachment 3) noted that all relevant design review criteria were considered in staff’s recommendation to the Board for the Project. The Appeal does not identify how the landscape plan may be inaccurate, nor was such information provided by the Appellant to the Board for their consideration.

5. “The DRB’s decision in this matter approved a significant modification to a 2012 landscape plan that was part of a major remodel of 1813 Temple Hills Drive. At the 2012 hearing (minutes attached as Exhibit “2” at pp, 5-7) the DRB made certain aspects of the 2012 landscaping plan conditions to the approval of the larger project. This 2012 approved landscaping plan was relied upon by the neighbors of 1813 Temple Hills Drive, including the Appellants for about 12 years.”
Staff response:

Although a design review-approved landscape plan cannot be modified by an Applicant unilaterally, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code allows an Applicant to request changes. Modifications to a previously approved landscape plan can be requested upon submitting a Design Review application, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q). These plans require review and approval by the Board, unless the landscape modifications qualify for a design review exemption. The Applicant submitted their application to modify the previously approved landscape plan and approved heights for the proposed trees on September 14, 2023.

These plans were cleared by City staff and presented to the Board at the February 13, 2025 public hearing.

The Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the Project and adopted Resolution No. 24-2113 (Attachment 4). The additional conditions took into account the testimony provide by the Applicant and Appellant and considered both privacy and view equity for the affected properties. These additional conditions were in response to the testimony provided by the Applicants and the Appellants at the February 13, 2025 Board hearing.

Page 12 of 14 ends

apparently under the false premise that they were responsible for planting the illegal Ficuses in the first place.”
Staff response:

The Applicant was allowed to request modification to their previously approved landscape plan, consistent with City procedures. In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q), the Applicant availed themselves of the ability to modify a prior approval through the review and approval of the Board. The Applicant followed the required procedures to modify their 2012 Board-approved landscape plan for their Property. The Board found that the requested changes, as conditioned, satisfied the design review criteria.

The fact that the Board had once before approved a landscape plan for the Property is not synonymous with the position that this landscape plan can never be modified; the Board will consider the merits, weigh the evidence, and render a decision based on the required findings for approval or denial for every application presented to the Board. The Appellant has not cited specific evidence to support a conclusion that the history of this application influenced the outcome. Based on staff’s review of the record, staff believes that the Board’s review was fair and impartial, and gave due consideration to all evidence presented.

7. “A review of the transcript of the DRB February 13 hearing reveals that the Applicants failed to provide the Board with substantial evidence to support their contention that there was good cause to approve a substantial modification of a landscaping plan that had been in place for 12 years. No evidence was produced that there was any change in circumstances that justified the DRB’s decision in this matter. But most egregiously, they approved a change that unnecessarily and severely obstructs the Schiffmans’ view of Catalina from the entire upper floor.”
Staff response:

As indicated in the meeting minutes, four of the five Board members also met with the Appellant prior to the hearing, providing the Appellant with an additional opportunity to express their concerns with the Project (Attachment 7). The Appellant’s arguments that there must be “good cause to approve a substantial modification of a landscaping plan” or that “[n]o evidence was produced that there was any change in circumstances” are not the pertinent standards or required findings. The Board applied the required design review criteria to the proposed modifications as explained above.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 13 of 14 ends

8. “Further, a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals that the various members were confused about the locations, dimensions, impact on views, the species of trees involved, the status of code enforcement proceedings, and the terms and the significance of the previously approved 2012 landscape plan. Several Board members admitted at the meeting that the severe weather on the day of their site visit compromised their ability to assess the situation at the site. One Board member did not complete a site visit. Two Board members had requested additional evaluation by Planning to develop a more reasoned ruling, but were overruled.

What the DRB did approve allows for the illegal Ficuses to grow 25 feet directly into the Catalina views from the Master bedroom, Great room and upper decks. This is not reasonable, nor what they probably intended, and it certainly does not meet Architectural Guidelines.” Staff response:

The Board posed questions for the Applicant, staff, and Appellants in their deliberation of the project. These questions were answered, and the Board understood the Project, material facts, and relevant design review criteria on which to assess and conditionally approve the Project. The record demonstrates that the Board appropriately weighed the evidence and rendered a decision based on the required findings.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The recommended action has no financial impact to the budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The appeal does not encompass the Board’s CEQA determination. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of planting of trees, shrubs, and groundcover to a previously developed residential parcel. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply. Design review is required for construction within an “environmentally sensitive area” due to the lot slope being greater than 30%, as defined in LBMC 25.50.040, however the project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive resources such as high value habitat, rock outcroppings, watercourses, or any other sensitive resources. The site itself is not environmentally sensitive.

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. 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.

Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-2113 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive November 18, 2025

Page 14 of 14 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. City Council Resolution (Pgs. 15-26)

2. Appeal (Pgs. 27-50)

3. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Staff Report (Pgs. 51-60)

4. Adopted Resolution Design Review 24-2113 (Pgs. 61-69)

5. Board-Approved Landscape Plans (Pgs. 70)

6. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Public Comments (Pgs. 71-76)

7. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes (Pgs. 77-95)

8. February 13, 2025 Design Review Board Meeting Transcript (Pgs. 96-116)

9. City Council Appeal Public Hearing Notice (Pgs. 117)

10. Order of Testimony (Pgs. 118-119)
Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director of Community Development
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
RESOLUTION NO. 25.XXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND
UPHOLDING THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF
DESIGN REVIEW 24-2113 FOR MODIFICATIONS TO A

PREVIOUSLY APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR AN
EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 1813 TEMPLE
HILLS DRIVE LOCATED IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM

THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
PURSUANT TO STATE CEA GUIDELINES SECTION 15304
WHEREAS, the property owners, Vella and Kavita Reddy (“Applicant”), of 1813 Temple Hills Drive (the “Property”), applied for Design Review (“DR”) 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan to an existing single-family residence in the R-1 (Residential Low Density) zone pursuant to Laguna Beach Municipal Code (“LBMC”) Section

25.05.040(B)(1)(q) (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, on February 13, 2025, the Design Review Board (“Board”) held a duly noticed public hearing and considered the Project. Following the public hearing, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt Resolution No. 24-2113, conditionally approving the Project, including the approval of a categorical exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15304 (the “Approval”); and
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2025, Rhett and Sherry Schiffman (“Appellant”) of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, filed an appeal of the Board’s Approval (the “Appeal”); and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2025, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the Appeal and continued the public hearing to the November 18, 2025 City Council meeting, for the purpose of allowing the applicant and appellant additional time to come to a mutual agreement on the matter; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2025, the City Council held a public hearing on the Appeal -2- Reso. #
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.

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

These trees severely impacted the Schiffmans’ ocean and Catalina views. Most of the violations have since been addressed by Code Enforcement, but the DRB was to address 2 remaining illegal Ficuses that were planted in a view corridor to Catalina on the original landscape plans where only ground cover was meant to be.” City Council Finds:

25.05.040(B)(1)(q), and receive approval from the Board in order to resolve the pending Code Enforcement case. The Applicants did submit their project and received the required approval for -3- Reso. #
the modifications to their approved landscape plan as of February 13, 2025, when the Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the project. The Board specifically considered view equity for the project and concluded view equity was met.

The Board found that the vegetation heights achieved view equity, and this decision was based on -4- Reso. #
the topographic conditions of the Property, and balanced consideration for the Applicant’s privacy and the Appellant’s views.

The Board voted 5-0 at the February 13, 2025 public hearing to conditionally approve DR 24-2113 for modifications to the landscape plan. The Appellants were in attendance and provided comments during the public comment period of the hearing, and would have been aware that the Project had received conditional approval at the conclusion of the hearing. Board Member Gibbs, the maker of the motion to grant DR 24-2113 and which carried by a 5-0 vote, read into the record certain additional conditions of approval. (Attachment 8 [February 13, 2025 Board Transcript], Gibbs, p. 20 of 21.) These conditions were correctly incorporated into the Board’s Resolution No. 24-2113, which was subsequently signed by the Board chair, Jessica Gannon, and Interim Planning Manager Jim Campbell. The City does not provide additional notice to neighbors regarding either approval or denial of any matter before the Board. Further, any assertion that the DRB’s decision is decision is not final until the resolution is executed by pertinent DRB members or staff is not supported by law – the decision is final when the DRB publicly deliberates, makes a motion, and votes on an item.

3. “Applicants’ advocate and agent at the hearing, Mr. Steve Kawaratani, testified that he provided ex-parte assistance to the staff member assigned to this project (Garrett Wank) who used Mr. Kawaratani’s input in order to prepare his Staff Report and that he also held ex-parte meetings with Board members. Further, as a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals, both City staff and the DRB members deferred to Mr. Kawaratani to provide them with key “facts” on which they relied to recommend and approve the project. However, many of the key facts provided to the -5- Reso. #
DRB and City staff by Mr. Kawaratani were misstatements of the facts. Among other misrepresentations, Mr. Kawaratani testified that the Schiffmans (appellants) themselves planted the two “illegal” trees that was the basis for this meeting. This is not so, as photographic evidence reveals. Mr. Kawaratani also testified that the Appellants harassed the Applicants by complaining to Code Enforcement that their plantings violated the 2012 approved landscaping plans. The Appellants did not harass Applicants; they merely reported the code violations. These statements were false and highly prejudicial.”
City Council Finds:

Mr. Kawaratani, acting in his capacity as the Applicant’s representative for the landscape plan, was in communication with staff in regards to the project scope and details during the entitlement process. These conversations are necessary and routine for all projects that are submitted for the City’s review, and are intended to ensure that staff has a clear and complete understanding of the application. Staff will then prepare an independent analysis of the application and present a recommendation to the Board, based on staff’s review of the information and on the basis of the required findings for approval or denial. These communications do not constitute “exparte” communications, as staff does not make any decisions on any project before the Board. Staff is regularly in contact with both project applicants as well as project proponents/opponents. This accessibility by staff is in no way inappropriate.

Prior to opening the hearing, all Board members disclosed all communications they had with Applicants and the Appellant in relation to the Project, as noted in the minutes (Attachment 7). After staff presented the Project, including a recommendation that the Board to consider view equity considerations and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns raised by the Schiffmans, the Board opened the public hearing, at which time Mr. Kawaratani provided additional comments. He noted that the two Ficus trees and one Pittosporum Silver Sheen tree were not on the previously approved landscape plan for the property, and that he was requesting -6- Reso. #
that they be approved. Mr. Kawaratani noted that a survey was done for the property showed that the two Ficus trees were on the other side of a previously existing wood fence. This fence had been considered the property line, but it was in fact located on the Applicant’s property. The revised landscape plan showed this area and the two Ficus trees to remain, and he asked the Board that the Ficus trees be allowed to grow up to 25 feet in height and pruned twice a year, and for the Silver Sheen to be allowed a maximum of 20 feet in height. The Board then opened the hearing to public comment during which Rhett Schiffman who resides at 1843 Temple Hills Drive spoke first. He noted that the trees were well above 40 feet in height and that they had spoken with Code Enforcement. He stated that the two Ficus trees were planted directly in a view corridor of Catalina Island and that there were seven other trees not on the approved landscape plan which had since been removed. Chairperson Gannon asked Mr. Schiffman if they had planted the two Ficus trees and Mr. Schiffman stated they had not planted those trees. The Applicants were provided three minutes for rebuttal of public comments. The Board asked a few questions of the Applicant and staff regarding the history of the project, but the Board did not consider whether the Applicant or Appellant had planted the trees in their deliberation on the project, nor does the record indicate that the code enforcement history influenced the outcome of the hearing. Further, attempting to police or correct any alleged misstatement by the applicant (or any public testimony for that matter) is not a priority of the DRB. The DRB considers the entirety of the record and exercises its discretion in reviewing each project individually. The record does not indicate that any allegations of harassment were considered in the decision-making process. The Board’s deliberations focused on the relevant design review criteria, and specifically view equity and privacy. To best satisfy both of these criteria, the Board granted a conditional approval, restricting the maximum height of -7- Reso. #
the existing Ficus trees while also setting a minimum height for these same trees in order to provide privacy between the Applicant and Appellant.

This 2012 approved landscaping plan was relied upon by the neighbors of 1813 Temple Hills Drive, including the Appellants for about 12 years.” City Council Finds:
-8- Reso. #
Although a design review-approved landscape plan cannot be modified by an Applicant unilaterally, the Laguna Beach Municipal Code allows an Applicant to request changes.

Modifications to a previously approved landscape plan can be requested upon submitting a Design Review application, pursuant to LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q). These plans require review and approval by the Board, unless the landscape modifications qualify for a design review exemption. The Applicant submitted their application to modify the previously approved landscape plan and approved heights for the proposed trees on September 14, 2023. These plans were cleared by City staff and presented to the Board at the February 13, 2025 public hearing. The Board voted 5-0 to conditionally approve the Project and adopted Resolution No. 24-2113 (Attachment 4). The additional conditions took into account the testimony provide by the Applicant and Appellant and considered both privacy and view equity for the affected properties.

These additional conditions were in response to the testimony provided by the Applicants and the Appellants at the February 13, 2025 Board hearing.

6. “Much of the February 2025 hearing was spent discussing the fact that the Appellants had made complaints to Laguna Beach Code Enforcement because, in their view, the vegetation on the Applicants’ property violated the terms of the 2012 DRB approval of the landscape plans. In fact, in response to the complaints made by the Appellants, Code Enforcement appropriately investigated and appropriately issues 3 citations. Below are portions of the Code Enforcement’s April 9, 2025 communications with Applicants.
…
Instead of correcting the cited vegetation, Applicants asked the DRB to intervene and then successfully obtained a retroactive approval of an amended landscape plan. To make matters worse, the hearing transcript makes it clear that some of the DRB members were hostile towards the Appellants for having exercised their right to report the code violations, apparently under the false premise that they were responsible for planting the illegal Ficuses in the first place.” City Council Finds:
-9- Reso. #
The Applicant was allowed to request modification to their previously approved landscape plan, consistent with City procedures. In accordance with LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q), the Applicant availed themselves of the ability to modify a prior approval through the review and approval of the Board. The Applicant followed the required procedures to modify their 2012 Board-approved landscape plan for their Property. The Board found that the requested changes, as conditioned, satisfied the design review criteria. The fact that the Board had once before approved a landscape plan for the Property is not synonymous with the position that this landscape plan can never be modified; the Board will consider the merits, weigh the evidence, and render a decision based on the required findings for approval or denial for every application presented to the Board.

The Appellant has not cited specific evidence to support a conclusion that the history of this application influenced the outcome. Based on staff’s review of the record, staff believes that the Board’s review was fair and impartial, and gave due consideration to all evidence presented.

The Applicant submitted the proposed modifications to their landscape plan to the City for review on September 14, 2023. City staff reviewed those plans in accordance with the relevant Design Review criteria and provided the required analysis in the staff report (Attachment 3) to support the Project as proposed. The Board took into consideration staff’s analysis, testimony provided by the Applicant, and public comments in their 5-0 vote to conditionally approve the -10- Reso. #
modification to the landscape plans in the adopted Resolution (Attachment 4). As indicated above, the fact that the Board had once before approved a landscape plan for the Property is not determinative; the Board will consider the merits, weigh the evidence, and render a decision based on the required findings for approval or denial for every application presented to the Board. As indicated in the meeting minutes, four of the five Board members also met with the Appellant prior to the hearing, providing the Appellant with an additional opportunity to express their concerns with the Project (Attachment 7). The Appellant’s arguments that there must be “good cause to approve a substantial modification of a landscaping plan” or that “[n]o evidence was produced that there was any change in circumstances” are not the pertinent standards or required findings. The Board applied the required design review criteria to the proposed modifications as explained above.

The Board posed questions for the Applicant, staff, and Appellants in their deliberation of the project. These questions were answered, and the Board understood the Project, material facts, and relevant design review criteria on which to assess and conditionally approve the Project. The -11- Reso. #
record demonstrates that the Board appropriately weighed the evidence and rendered a decision based on the required findings.

SECTION 3. Based on its review of the entire record before it, the City Council hereby finds and determines, in accordance with CEQA, that the Project is categorically exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15304 – Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the project is limited to landscaping that does not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the project site is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. 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. 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. Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder's Office within 5 days of adoption of this Resolution. -12- Reso. #
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby denies the Appeal and sustains the Design Review Boards’s determination on the Project, as reflected in Resolution No. 24-2113, including all conditions attached thereto, which such Resolution and conditions are incorporated herein by this reference.

ADOPTED this 18th day of November, 2025.

Alex Rounaghi, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ann Marie McKay, City Clerk
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 November 18, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

City Clerk, City of Laguna Beach, California

DESIGN REVIEW BOARD STAFF REPORT
February 13, 2025
Agenda Item No. 5.9
Case No: Design Review 24-2113
Project Location: 1813 Temple Hills Drive | APN: 641-382-14 Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant
(949) 290-0210 | [email protected]
Property Owner: Vella Reddy
Prepared By: Community Development Department
Garrett Wank | Associate Planner
(949) 464-6626 | [email protected]
Board Members within a
500’ Radius: None
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution 24-2113 (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding said action exempt from CEQA under Section 15304.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The Applicant, Steve Kawaratani, is requesting Design Review 24-2113. The proposed project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan (the “Project”). Staff recommends approval, however staff also recommends that the Board deliberate on the view equity and landscaping criteria and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

PROPERTY AERIAL PHOTO

PROPERTY INFORMATION
Land Use Designation Village Low Density (1-7 DU/AC)
Zoning Designation R-1 Residential Low Density

ZONING REVIEW
The proposed project complies with applicable zoning standards and guidelines as shown in the summary table below.

Development Standard Required Existing Proposed Conforms Site Coverage 4,130 SF (35%) 2,212 SF
(18.7%)
2,212 SF
(18.7%)
Yes
Landscape Open Space 2,325 SF (25.83%) 7,175 SF
(60.8%)
7,175 SF
(60.8%)
Yes
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:

Site History
The property is currently developed with a single-family residence and two-car garage built in 1975.

On November 1, 2001, the City Council approved Lot Line Adjustment 01-05 to realign the property line between 1843 and 1813 Temple Hills Drive.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 3 ends

On March 15, 2012, the Design Review Board approved Design Review 12-248 for upper level additions, elevator height, elevated decks, air conditioning, grading, landscaping, construction in an environmentally sensitive area (earthquake fault), and to maintain the nonconforming driveway grade with the conditions that: the existing Brazilian Pepper hedge in the right-of-way be maintained at 15 feet and the width not allowed to be any wider; two Eucalyptus in the side yard directly above the small deck be removed; the remaining existing 16 trees in the rear yard be maintained at 20 feet or less; the uplights be reduced from seven to four, and the architectural lighting be limited to one light per exit, two at the garage of forty watts maximum.

Code Enforcement Case 23-0067 was opened on January 31, 2023, and remains open for not adhering to the design-review-approved landscape plan and making modifications to an approved landscape plan without approval.

Proposed Project
The property is located on Temple Hills Drive in a single-family neighborhood. The Project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan, including new and removed trees.

The Project is exempt from the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) requirements as the scope of work consists of site improvements on a lot developed with an existing single-family residence, the lot is not within close proximity to a beach or bluff, the property is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping, and none of the exceptions apply. (See Laguna Beach Municipal Code (LBMC)

25.07.008(A)(1)).

Coastal Development Permit (CDP)
The project does not require approval of a CDP because the proposed action is considered exempt development pursuant to LBMC Section 25.07.008, Coastal Development Permits. The proposed improvements are limited to landscaping that are accessory to an existing single-family dwelling and do not include additions that would require the project to be treated as new development.

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

Design Review
The following element requires Design Review: modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. (See LBMC Section 25.05.040(B)(1)(q).) 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.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 4 ends

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping and no changes are proposed to the existing pedestrian and vehicular access. The property will maintain the existing access off of Temple Hills Drive.

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 proposed Project is limited to landscaping. These improvements would have no impact on the single-family structure’s well-articulated appearance.

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 proposed Project is limited to landscaping, and no changes are proposed to the existing single-family residence.

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.

Yes. The subject property is located within a developed single-family neighborhood and does not maintain any significant natural features, such as heritage trees, rock outcroppings, significant watercourses, or ridgelines. No grading is being proposed as part of this project. The landscape plan modifications would continue to provide for a well-vegetated rear yard with a diversity of plant species.

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
Land Use (LU) Policy 2.8 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography and/or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document.

Yes. The project, limited to landscaping and align with this policy by integrating with the existing natural topographic features. No grading or obstruction of public views would occur.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 5 ends

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.).

Yes. The project enhances the site’s visual quality through appropriate landscaping without introducing architectural changes. Public views remain unaffected as the existing Brazilian Pepper hedge obscures visibility of the proposed vegetation from Temple Hills Drive. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

LU Policy 3.10 Require building design and siting to be compatible and integrated with natural topographic features, minimize significant alteration of natural topography or other significant onsite resources, and protect public views as specified in the Design Guidelines and Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document by maintaining the low-profile character of structures.

Require use of appropriate landscaping, special architectural treatments, and siting considerations for projects visible from major highways and arterial streets. 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.).

Yes. The proposed landscaping respects the site's natural features. The landscaping plan employs visually compatible elements to align with local design guidelines. The existing Brazilian Pepper hedge obscures visibility of the proposed vegetation from Temple Hills Drive, therefore no change is proposed to the existing public views.

LU Policy 10.2 Design and site new development to protect natural and environmentally sensitive resources such as areas of unique scenic quality, public views, and visual compatibility with surrounding uses and to minimize landform alterations. (Same as Policy 7.3) GOAL: Ensure that proposals for new development, subdivisions, and major remodels are sufficiently evaluated to protect public health and safety and natural resources.

Yes. By maintaining the existing terrain and focusing solely on landscaping, the project minimizes landform alterations. There are no environmentally sensitive resources in the project area, and no grading or building modifications are proposed.

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

N/A. The existing residence was constructed in 1975 and is approximately 49 years old. The structure is not listed on the City’s Historic Register and is not associated with events or persons important to local, regional, or national history. The structure also does not represent the work of a master, nor does it exhibit high artistic values. Finally, the building does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a particular type, period, region, or method of construction. The structure has been DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 6 ends

modified over the years, including kitchen additions in 1964, a garage extension in 1993, and upperlevel floor area additions and deck additions in 2012.

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 subject property is located within the Rimrock (#6b) neighborhood as specified in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The neighborhood is characterized by varied streetscape planting, ranging from a rustic palette of Eucalyptus, California Sycamore, and California Pepper, to a 1960's tropical palette of Coral Trees, Giant Bird of Paradise, and palm trees.

The submitted landscape plan has been reviewed by the City’s landscaping consultant and the proposed landscaping is consistent with the City’s requirements. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

As shown in Figure 1, the proposed changes to the approved planting plan (already planted) incorporate a range of groundcover, shrubs, and trees including:
• Removal of:
o 9 Carolina Laurel Cherry shrubs
o 2 Strawberry Trees
o 17 existing trees (species not specified)
• Planting of:
o 6 Cast Iron Plants (groundcover),
o 3 Agave maintained at 4’ in height,
o 2 Phormium Hybrid Flux maintained at 4’ in height.
o 4 Eureka Lemon trees maintained at 15’ in height
o 4 Weeping Fig trees maintained at 20’ in height
o 1 Evergreen Ash tree maintained at 20’ in height
o 2 Pittosporum Silversheen trees maintained at 18’ in height As noted on the landscape plan (Attachment 2), all volunteer plants are to be removed.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 7 ends

Figure 1: Proposed Planting Legend

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, highgloss 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 Applicant does not propose any new lighting as part of this application. Any future lighting will be subject to the City’s Good Neighbor Outdoor Lighting Ordinance (LBMC Chapter 7.70).

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 modifications are consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. No new structures, grading, or alterations to the residence are proposed. The design complements the surrounding properties by maintaining an informal and visually appealing landscape.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 8 ends

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 landscape plan incorporates plantings to enhance privacy without introducing structures or hardscape elements. The existing and proposed trees will serve to create a visual barrier between the subject property and the adjacent neighbors.

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.

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 proposed Project is limited to a new planting plan.

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.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 9 ends

N/A. The proposed Project is limited to landscaping, and no pool, spa, or water feature is included in the application.

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.

Yes. The applicant proposes Weeping Fig trees at 20’ maintained height along with Evergreen Ash trees at 20’ height, existing New Zealand Christmas tree to remain at 20’ height, existing Strawberry Trees to remain at 15’ height and Pittosporum Silversheen shrubs to be raised from 12’ height to 18’ height.

The subject property is located within the Rimrock (#6b) neighborhood as specified in the City’s Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document. The neighborhood is characterized by varied streetscape planting, ranging from a rustic palette of Eucalyptus, California Sycamore, and California Pepper, to a 1960's tropical palette of Coral Trees, Giant Bird of Paradise, and palm trees.

The proposed landscaping is designed to complement the neighborhood. Maximum maintained heights for all new trees are proposed to range from 15 to 20 feet high to maintain private views for neighboring properties.

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.

There are no other design guidelines that apply.

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.

The project is limited to landscaping modifications, which are appropriately scaled to the property and surrounding neighborhood. The proposed improvements do not include any new structures or expansions, ensuring the development remains proportional to the site.

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

N/A. The project site is not located in a specific plan area and the R-1 zoning does not contain any other specific design review criteria. The project conforms to the Architectural Guidelines, including landscaping, privacy, view equity, and neighborhood compatibility as described above.

DR 24-2113
February 13, 2025

Page 10 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines, the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of minor alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees. There is no evidence of any unusual or special conditions that would result in a significant effect on the environment. Here, the project is limited to landscaping that does not involve the removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

Further, none of the exceptions outlined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply. The project site does not contain any environmentally sensitive areas in that the project site is fully improved with structures, hardscape, and ornamental landscaping and the City’s environmentally sensitive areas maps do not identify any such areas on-site or within the immediate Project vicinity. 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. 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.

Staff will cause to be filed a Notice of Exemption (NOE) with the County Recorder’s Office should the Project receive final approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

If the Design Review Board determines that the project is consistent with the view equity and landscaping design review criteria, then it is recommended that the Board, by motion, adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) approving Design Review 24-2113 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.

PUBLIC COMMENT:

Staff has received concerns regarding consistency with the design-review-approved landscape plans as well as view equity from the adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. Specifically, the neighbor notes that the proposed tree heights at the east end of the property currently impact the viewshed of 1843 Temple Hills Drive, which abuts the project site to the east. (Attachment 3).

ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1 – Resolution No. 24-2113
Attachment 2 – Plans
Attachment 3 – Public Commentary

unpermitted fence - (removed)
09/14/23 - REVISION
09/23
SK

PLANTING PLAN
2 2
2 AS SHOWN
1 2
FICUS BENJAMINA WEEPING FIG 20'H X 15'W
24" BOX
18'H X 10'W
2 (EX)
(DRAWN 4.12)
ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE 15'H X 15'W AS SHOWN
EXISTINGs1
15'H X 10'W 15 GAL AS SHOWN

ARB UNE
03/24/24 - REVISION

FIC BEN FICUS BENJAMINA - WEEPING FIG (EXISTING)
MAINTAINED AT A 20' HEIGHT
Pittosporum 'Silver Sheen' (Existing)
Maintained to upper roof eave +/- 18' height

CIT EUR -CITRUS

EUREKA LEMON
(EXISTING)
Ficus Benjamina (Existing)
FRA UHD FRAXINUS UHDEI EVERGREEN ASH 2O'H X 20'W
BOU SPE BOUGAINVILLEA SPEC. BOUGAINVILLEA BOUGAINVILLEA

FRUIT TREE

EUR LEM CIT LEM CITRUS 'EUREKA LEMON EUREKA LEMON

ARB UNE

PIT SIL

FIC BEN

FRA UHD
7'

MAINT SIZE

ASP PHO ASP
AGA
AGA

AGA ASP
ASP
ASP
ASP
PHO

ALL VOLUNTEER PLANTS WILL BE REMOVED
VELLA - REDDY RESIDNCE1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVELAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 09/16/24 - REVISION

PLANTING PLAN
Cleared for DRB
Signature __________ Date _____________ 09/27/2024
OX
24" BOX AS SHOWN
OX
(EX) FICUS BENJAMINA WEEPING FIG 20'H X 7'W EXISTING AS SHOWN 1 May 11, 2024
Hi, Garrett.

Thanks for meeting with me this past Friday and sharing the revised landscape plan for 1813 THD.

As we discussed, there are a few errors, omissions and misrepresentations still in this revised plan.

1. The two illegal Ficuses (in green circles, 1st image, below) are each represented as ~4-5ft on this plan (based on the size of the circles and the 1in to 8ft scale on the plan.) They are instead 15-20ft wide and massively block our views (2nd image, below). The green circles are also in the wrong location. The Ficuses are farther south (away from the street) than what is represented here and are directly in what used to be one of our best view corridors to Catalina Island on the originally approved landscape plan (3rd image, below). This plan, as drafted, would give the DRB a distorted and wholly inaccurate impression of the impact of these illegal trees on our pre-existing view corridor. The planting legend shows the intended mature height of these Ficuses to be limited to 20ft x15ft.

This plan does not accurately reflect this and is grossly misleading. If these illegal Ficuses are to stay, effectively permanently losing us this view corridor, forever, then we will insist that not only these Ficuses, but all the remaining trees in the backyard are limited to a height of 15ft (except as discussed, below) so that the remaining view corridors are never impacted again. Of note, the Evergreen Ash is also wrongly placed on the plan. It is instead ~5ft more into the marked view corridor (towards the left) and further reduces the view corridor from how it is depicted and was approved by the DRB (3rd image, below). Finally, if these Ficuses are to be legalized, the southern extent of the Ficuses must be limited to no farther south than this edge of our deck as depicted in the 2nd image, by the orange vertical line.
2 2. According to the changes in this plan, the Vellas are also seeking to increase the size (width) of the Evergreen Ash from what was ~10ft on the originally approved plan to 20ft, which it illegally already is. [Note that the maximum approved size of the Evergreen as digitally measured on the approved landscape plan by David Latham of Planning is 9’-8 ¾, 1st image, below.] As above, this would not be acceptable to us unless: 1) the final height of this extremely fast-growing tree is limited to 15ft, consistent with their most recently trimming (2nd image, below on the right), and as originally proposed by the Vellas and some DRB members at the original DRB Evergreen Ash - 5 � further away from the
rear property, into the view corridor than
depicted here
Exis�ng
Ficus
View Corridor - There is only ground cover
on the plan
Two unapproved ficuses exactly in the
view corridor
Current Plan�ngs In View Corridor: • Evergreen Incorrectly Located on the Plan. It is 5� further into the corridor; Branches Extends Well into the View Corridor • Exis�ng Ficus Now Extends Well into View Corridor
• 2 Illegal Ficuses Placed Directly in the View Corridor Illegal Ficuses
3 meeting (3rd image, below), and 2) the other proposed restrictions in this email are adopted. Also, 3) the increased width, from 10ft to 20ft, can only extend towards the street (uphill- to the right, 2nd image below) to blend into the illegal Ficuses to form a hedge, as it currently does, and not be allowed to extend southerly into our view corridor as it did previously (2nd image on the left), significantly blocking our views of Catalina; and 4) nor can any of its branches be permitted to exceed the 15 ft height limit of the illegal Ficuses at any time so that it is maintained as a well-manicured, sloped hedge as depicted in the 4th image, below. If this is not acceptable, then I will strongly contest the legalizing of the Ficuses, as their refusal to maintain this Evergreen, even within the existing limits, has been a constant nuisance and source of stress to us, necessitating 3 citations from Code Enforcement. This is no way the height limit of the Ash can or should remain at 20ft in this location while maintaining our view equity. They have proven this convincingly over the last 4 years of this dispute.

Evergreen Ash Hedge- Before and Now A�er Most
Recent Trimming Mandated by Code Enforcement
Massive overgrowth well beyond 10� wide limit and
extending southerly into view corridor to Catalina
View corridor to ocean and Catalina restored- Current
Uphill, towards the street, is to the right in these images Well-manicured
Evergreen
4 3. The Vellas are also seeking to increase the height of the Pittosporum in their front yard to the upper roof eave of ~18ft. We would accept this if: 1) the plan stipulates that they tree can’t exceed the roof eave, as this is less ambiguous and easier for me to monitor than a height measurement, and 2) if the Pittosporum in the backyard, next to the Evergreen Ash, and also in our view corridor farther to the south, is limited to 15ft, as mentioned above, rather than the 18ft the Vellas are requesting for all Pittosporum on the planting legend. There is no privacy and shade value to this tree in that corner of their property, but it creates another opportunity for the Vellas to willfully and spitefully obstruct our views, as they have done for years.

DRB Discussion- March 15, 2012
Landscape architect did say
no new trees in backyard
and exis�ng limited to 15 �
or remove completely
Southern extent
of Illegal Ficuses
to be removed
Evergreen Ash is already ~20ft
wide and extends to the right
behind the illegal ficuses to form
a privacy hedge with the illegal
5 4. Assuming they agree to the other restrictions, the two originally approved Ficuses can be allowed a 20ft maximum height limit, rather than 15ft as indicated on the plan, provided their width is not permitted to extend beyond the rear of their house (not including the decks). This severely impacted our views, previously (image, below), so regardless of the final height (15 or 20ft), these Ficuses cannot extend beyond the rear of their house.

Their width is currently well beyond the 15ft width and are also inaccurately represented on the revised plan.

Lastly, mostly for Ross, there is still an illegal tree (1st image, below) next to the property line (orange arrow) near the Evergreen Ash (turquoise arrow) that is not on this plan. It was one of several unapproved trees, planted after the DRB meeting, along the property line that were mostly removed after you determined them to be illegal (2nd image, below).

This one remains and needs to be removed as well.
6 Finally, I can’t help but point out that since their last submission, they managed to increase the size of Evergreen Ash on the plan from 10 to 20 feet, and yet somehow overlooked correcting the size of the two illegal Ficuses, the main focus of this Enforcement action, from the ridiculously inaccurate 5ft, to the proposed 15ft- let alone their actual size. This is a flagrant underrepresentation of these trees still showing them as 5+5 or 10ft wide vs. the proposed 15+15 or 30ft widein this very same location that has been under Code Enforcement action for well over a year. You can see from the photo on page 2, these Ficuses are a huge dense hedge and pretty hard to miss. Oops… I guess? I hope this is all clear and helps your review of the landscape plan. Feel free to contact me with any questions. If you feel that a visit is in order, that’s fine, too.

But I would be grateful if they were not further rewarded for their continued careless, if not deliberately shoddy work, with yet another extended delay.

Regards,
Rhett
313-516-6924

5.9 1813 Temple Hills Drive, APN 641-382-14 - APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS DESIGN REVIEW 24-2113 AND CATEGORCIAL EXEMPTION [Section 15304] City Staff: Garrett Wank, Associate Planner at (949) 464-6626 [email protected]
Project Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant (949) 290-0210, [email protected]
The proposed project includes modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. The project is proposed as exempt development under Laguna Beach Municipal Code Chapter 25.07.

Disclosures: Mr. Gibbs, Ms. Coveny, Ms. Thalman and Mr. Weil visited the site with the applicant and met with neighbor Rhett Shiffman. Chair Gannon made a site visit and emailed with the applicant and attempted to visit the neighbor.

Staff Presentation: Associate Planner, Garrett wank, summarized the staff report and recommendation to approve the project.

Board Questions: None
Chair Gannon opened public hearing.

Project Representative: Steve Kawaratani presented the project.

Public Testimony: Rhett Schiffman of 1843 Temple Hills Drive filed a code enforcement complaint regarding overgrown vegetation at the project location that threatened his home during storms. The existing Ficus trees that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet tall at present.

Sheri Schiffman of 1843 Temple Hills Drive stated the project affects their view and is concerned about the Ficus trees and does not think their neighbor's privacy is an issue.

Spencer Harris of 1765 Temple Hills Drive supports the project.

Rebuttal: The property owner stated the Schiffman' s are being unreasonable with their requests. Steve Kawaratani stated the owners want to ensure the neighbors maintain their views, but they also want to maintain their privacy. He would like the height of only three trees be modified.

Board Questions: Ms. Thalman asked if Mr. Schiffman asked them to cut the trees. The property owner stated they would cut the trees to a height that would preserve their privacy.

February 13, 2025
Mr. Weil asked if the trees' current height provided privacy. The owner stated that they do not. He was given the history of code enforcement cases/ inspections for this property.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the proposed changes were different from what was being discussed. Staff stated that there were some differences between the DRB approved landscape plan and the plan being presented now.

Steve Kawaratani compiled a list of proposed changes to the approved planting plan that includes some plants that are already in existence.

Mr. Gibbs asked if there are things on the plan that already exist that they are requesting approval for; Mr. Kawaratani agreed.

Ms. Thalman and Mr. Weil asked for clarification of the trees/hedge height. Staff stated the Brazilian pepper hedge be maintained at 15 feet and the remaining 16 trees be 20 feet or less.

Mr. Gibbs asked if the application is for existing trees but are not plants on the original approved plans; Staff agreed.

Chair Gannon closed the public hearing.

Board Comments: Mr. Weil stated the main concern is privacy and view corridors. He would like the board to collaborate and determine in the interest of all parties the trees height and maintenance, Chair Gannon and Mr. Gibbs concur.

Ms. Coveny thinks that serious parameters need to be given but does not think there is a view equity issue, but some cleanup would improve the property.

Ms. Thalman is supportive and ready to approve the project with the clarifications that have been made.

Chair Gannon is ready to move forward and agrees with Mr. Gibbs and is prepared to approve the project.

Mr. Gibbs also supports the project.

Mr. Gibbs made a motion, seconded by Ms. Thalman, to adopt Resolution 24-2113 approving modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding the approval exempt from CEQA under section 15304, with conditions restricting landscaping height as described on page 6 of the staff report and limiting three Ficus February 13, 2025

Page 1 of 21 ends

Chair Gannon:

Yes. Mr. Wank, your fabulous presentation please.

Garrett Wank:

Thank you. Good evening. Design Review Board and members of the public. Item 5.9 is a request for design review at 1813 Temple Hills Drive located in the R-1 zone. The property is currently developed with a single-family dwelling and has a design review-approved landscape plan. The project involves modifications to a previously approved landscape plan. Proposed changes to the approved planting plan, which have already been planted, include a range of ground cover shrubs and trees, as well as modifying the proposed height and widths of existing vegetation.

Staff has received concerns regarding consistency with design review-approved landscape plans, as well as view equity from the adjacent neighbor located at 1843 Temple Hills Drive, and staff recommends that the board conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution 24-2113 approving design review 24-2113 and finding set action exempt from CEQA. However, staff also recommends that the board deliberate on the view equity and landscaping criteria, and consider additional conditions of approval to address the concerns of the adjacent neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. That will conclude my staff summary and I'm available for any questions.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Mr. Wank. Board, any questions to staff? No. Going around the room. Okay, you have five minutes for your presentation.

Steve Kawaratani:

Thank you Chair Gannon. Good evening Board Members, staff. My name is Steve Kawaratani and before I begin, I do want to say that I know Jim Campbell from Newport Beach and we're very lucky to have him coming in as a planning manager, and I also want to take the time to thank Wendy for being a great zoning administrator.

Let me begin. I'm here with my clients, Kavita and Matt, and could we queue up the first slide please, Garrett? So this project is a simple request. We're asking that two Ficustrees that were not on the original plan be approved. Those are depicted by the two lighter green circles at the top of the plan. And we're also asking that a Pittosporum Silver Sheen, which also was not on the original plan be approved. Could we go to the next slide please?
This is a topographic survey that was completed in 2012, and I want you to note that red line. That red line is a fence that was in existence when the survey was done. I also would like to bring your attention to the two yellow circles. Those are the two Ficus. Next slide please.

So this plan is the one that a prior board approved in 2012, and you'll note that red line is back there again.

You'll also note that there was a blank space there. The landscape architect looked at the survey, and thought that that was the property line. Because that's where the wooden fence was, so those plants were not included. Next slide please.

We are asking that the two Ficus be approved, and we're also asking that that other Ficus, which is currently limited to 20 feet, we'd like that all three trees, because they do not pose a view issue. We're asking that they be allowed to be 20 to 25 feet tall, and that they be pruned twice yearly. The reason why I am asking for this is that code enforcement has had to be summoned on multiple, multiple occasions, and at one episode that I was at, the code enforcement officer sanctioned my clients, and said that the trees were six inches too high, one leaf. So we need to put an end to this. I'm thinking that if you modify

Page 2 of 21 ends

the approval to 25 feet, we'll keep it between 20 and 23 feet, and we won't have to chop it down to 16 feet and then lose their privacy. So I'm asking you to indulge us on that, and then the remaining trees both upward and back around the corner will continue to be maintained at 20 feet to respect view concerns.

Next slide please.

This is a picture of the Silver Sheen. Not sure why code enforcement arbitrarily decided it could be at a specific height. It poses no view concerns to anyone, and we are asking that this tree be allowed to grow up to the bottom or the top of the lower eave. Next slide.

So again, this is what we are requesting. The two lighter green circles, there's a black circle to the left, that's the existing Ficus right now that's limited to 20 feet. We're asking that it be allowed to grow to 25 feet, no more, and that the two plants to the right be allowed to grow up to 25 feet. No more than that, and certainly we're going to keep it well below the 23 to make sure we don't run afoul of code enforcement again. And again, that darker green circle is the Pittosporum Silver Sheen, and we are requesting that it be allowed to be approximately 20 feet tall. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Does that conclude your comments? Your presentation? Okay. Would you guys like to speak? Vella:

Yes.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. You could also save it for your rebuttal if you like.

Vella:

I'll say it in rebuttal.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. At this time, any members of the public wish to speak on 1813 Temple Hills Drive, please come to the podium.

Rhett Schiffman:

Eric, do you have that slide deck? Okay. I am Rhett Schiffman. I am the immediate neighbor at 1843 Temple Hills Drive. I think you could tell from some of the earlier comments that this has been a longstanding, somewhat contentious issue over time. We originally filed a code enforcement complaint 22 months ago regarding overgrown vegetation at 1813 Temple Hills Drive that threatened our home during storms. The existing Ficuses that were limited to 20 feet were nearly 40 feet at the time, well above our roofs, and our roofs had solar panels so we had plenty of reason to worry. There were three violations found by code enforcement when they came, including creating a public nuisance, failing to comply with approved landscaping plans. Code enforcement observed dead plant debris that appeared to be nests for rodents, several trees that had overgrown their 20 feet height limit, including an evergreen ash.

There were nine trees not on the approved landscape plan, seven of which have since been removed. And then two illegal Ficuses planted by the Vellas after the landscape approval that were planted directly in a view corridor to the ocean and Catalina Island. These illegal Ficuses and the overgrown evergreen are the primary reasons for this DRB. The Vellas have received three citations, earned three citations for failing to

Page 3 of 21 ends

maintain vegetation in compliance with the initial notice, and then figured out that how to avoid further citations was to make sure you cut your trees after code enforcement had scheduled a visit to do a compliance check.

I do want to point out on the previous slide if I can, that this is in fact the view corridor. And to be aware that those blue circles are precisely where they placed the Ficuses where there was only ground cover beforehand. So that view is all gone from our lower level and very much impacted from our upper level.

Next slide please.

Just to orient you, the view on the left is from the upper deck and allows you to see what is visible, what could be visible to the right of the eucalyptus out in the distance. But this is a incredibly valuable important view, as it shows us Catalina Island and the ocean. On the right shows you where the two illegal Ficuses are. They are right here. So you can see how much of that view is blocked.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion?
Rhett Schiffman:

Well, there's a whole lot, but let's go to the last slide.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion, your three minutes is up.

Rhett Schiffman:

Yeah.

Chair Gannon:

Please summarize your concerns.

Rhett Schiffman:

Go to the last slide please.

Chair Gannon:

In conclusion.

Rhett Schiffman:

In conclusion, what I would like is for those two Ficuses to be limited by the height and the width as demonstrated here. So the Ficuses don't go beyond our upper deck. And I would like for the Pittosporums and the evergreen ash, which are limited to below our hedge now, because I believe they knew you'd be looking, they should be also maintained, not increased in size or width, but maintained at the size that they are now.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you.

Page 4 of 21 ends

Rhett Schiffman:

Meaning 15 feet.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you. I have a question. The plants that you consider, that you're calling illegal, didn't you plant those trees when the fence was...

Rhett Schiffman:

No, no, no.

Chair Gannon:

So the trees, once the fence was repositioned correctly, those trees, they inherited these trees that were there?
Rhett Schiffman:

No, that was, actually, unfortunately I didn't know this question was coming, but I do have photographs of their team planting thoseChair Gannon:

It's okay.

Rhett Schiffman:
... Ficuses.

Chair Gannon:

It's okay.

Rhett Schiffman:

Well, it's important.

Chair Gannon:

Well no, we have the plans of the pre-existing trees that were there prior.

Rhett Schiffman:

Well there were two pre-existing Ficuses, and then there were two new ones.

Chair Gannon:

This isn't open for discussion. Thank you.

Rhett Schiffman:

That they planted.

Page 5 of 21 ends

Chair Gannon:

Would your wife like to make comments? She has three minutes. Next speaker please.

Sherry Schiffman:

So my name is Sherry Schiffman. I live next door. I didn't prepare to speak today until I heard about this situation, because this situation has been on and on over five years. We tried to negotiate, discuss and work out with them about those trees. And this situation, this case is not about privacy, they said is the privacy. If you visit our property you can see from their front door, they just show the photo. From the street you can see their front door, front windows. From the down below Rim Rock Canyon, you can see there all the deck, and all the windows.

So face to our side is only one window of their living room, and we allowed them to let the tree, their ficus tree grow enough to protect their privacy. That is not only for them, it's also important for us too. So it's not about a privacy issue. I think 25 feet of the tree is taller than our property. So that's what I want to say. And definitely it affect our view. To them, I didn't see anything they lose. They may lose the corner of their very end of the upper deck, if you've been visiting the property, that's their privacy. So I don't think privacy is the issue at all. And we would like to work out with them to protect their privacy. So that's it.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. That was well-spoken. Thank you, for not being prepared. Any other comments? Rhett Schiffman:

Well, I just have toChair Gannon:

No, sir, you're out of order. Next speaker, please. No, sirRhett Schiffman:

I do have to just show you.

Chair Gannon:

No sir, you canRhett Schiffman:

This is their people planting those Ficuses.

Chair Gannon:

Next comment please, or next speaker please.

Spencer Harrison:

My name is Spencer Harrison.

Chair Gannon:

Hello Spencer.

Page 6 of 21 ends

Spencer Harrison:

My wife Melanie and I are the owners of 1765 Temple Hills Drive. We are two doors down from the Reddys, three doors down from the Schiffmans. We are here in support of the Reddys position in this matter. The Reddys desire to preserve privacy between their property and the Schiffmans is entirely reasonable and entirely understandable, particularly given the history of the relationships among the people in this neighborhood. In my opinion, the Schiffmans have engaged in a pattern of unreasonable behavior, with repeated attempts to use the code enforcement process to get trees cut down. In my opinion, this needs to stop. In our case, this began eight years ago during our design review process for a remodel, the Schiffmans persuaded the Board that we should cut down five palm trees on the edge of our property. The asserted reason was to preserve their view of Catalina, even though their property has 180 degree unobstructed view of the ocean. The only way you could possibly see Catalina is to go out on the deck, peer right, and confronted a whole dozens of trees that block the view of Catalina.

Nevertheless, we agreed to chop down the five palm trees. Mr. Schiffman agreed to share the cost which he never did. Fast-forward to October of 2024, my understanding is that the Schiffmans have filed a complaint with code enforcement against us, claiming that we did not remove the five trees. They're seeking the removal of three additional palm trees on our property. I won't get into the details of this at this time because we may be back in front of you in short order, but in any event, acting on the complaint, code enforcement issued a notice of violation in November. Although they've now conceded that in fact we did cut down the five trees, because I showed them the stumps.

I don't know personally whether the Schiffmans have filed complaints with code of enforcement against other neighbors, other than the Reddys and ourselves, although they certainly told my wife and they told the DRB eight years ago that they intended to do so. This is harassment, it's unacceptable, and if the Schiffmans want a view of Catalina, they should purchase a property that actually has a view of Catalina.

Accordingly, we'd ask the Board to approve the Reddys reasonable request to keep the privacy and hopefully restore some semblance of peace in this neighborhood. Thank you very much.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Any other speakers?
Rhett Schiffman:

I feel like I should be able to respond toSpeaker 2:

No.

Chair Gannon:

You had three minutes. Our city attorney says no. Do we have question, or you get a three-minute rebuttal? Okay. No, there's no further speakers.

Vella Reddy:

Now I'll pass up a couple of...

Chair Gannon:

Yeah.

Page 7 of 21 ends

Vella Reddy:

Thank you for your time for hearing us out. I'm just going to rebut some of the points Mr. Schiffman made.

He said this dispute started 22 months ago. They sued us in 2010 about the Catalina view. And that property line that Steve mentioned, that was the purpose of the lawsuit. See, he had built the fence 15 to 20 feet inside the property line, and the part of our land that he appropriated had those trees, they existed at that time. And so that lawsuit was about controlling those trees and controlling the view, it was dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition. Why was it dismissed with prejudice on the eve of his deposition? Why did he give up? Because it turns out that the previous owner and her son told us this, was approached by him while she was sick to sign a deed to hand the land over.

And when she didn't, sometime between her death and our purchase of that property, he unilaterally built the fence with those trees in that sliver of property. If you don't believe that those trees existed, look at the photos that he tried to submit to the judge when after the case was dismissed with prejudice, he tried to get the Catalina view and the judge told him, "No way, Jose." He talked about nine trees. And yeah, you know what those nine trees came up the first time I heard? He tried to make us a deal, get rid of those trees. I'll let you get a pass on those trees if you give me my Catalina view. And we told him you want a Catalina view, there's something called the View Preservation Committee. And if you want to try to get a lateral view on Catalina, go there. What did he do? He didn't go there. He came to you. He made more threats towards our tree, and we're not the only neighbors he's threatened. He's threatened all our neighbors. He is essentially trying to trade not harassing us for his view. And if you guys let him get away with this, it's not going to stop. He's going to keep harassing neighbor after neighbor after neighbor until he gets this ridiculous view. In terms of the privacy, it's very simple. We already cut this tree down and he already has a full view into our upper level.

And we did it because my response to us being out of compliance was to put all the trees in compliance.

And if this goes down, he will have access, he'll have a view towards our deck. So on substance, it's very simple. If he had a case, he'd go to the View Preservation Committee. He doesn't have a case, so he's just going to harass us until we give in. We're not willing to give in. You should not let him have his way. Thank you.

Rhett Schiffman:

View Preservation is notChair Gannon:

You're out of order. I will excuse you from this room if you do it again. I apologize. I'm sorry for speaking to you this way, but I feel like at this point, it's warranted. Okay. You have 30 more seconds. Do you have any roundabout conclusions?
Steve Kawaratani:

We don't want to turn this into a melodrama. My clients want to make sure that all neighbors have their reviews, but we're also seeking our privacy. And after meeting with the board, it became apparent to us, because code enforcement is being used as a cudgel in this case, that we need to have you modify the height on only those three trees we are requesting so we don't lose our privacy and we don't continue to have issues with code enforcement. All the other trees will remain at the specified height as approved by the Board. Thank you.

Chair Gannon:

Thank you. Board, do we have any questions for the applicant?

Page 8 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I have a quick question.

Chair Gannon:

Yes.

Khristine Thalman:

Just out of curiosity, did Mr. Schiffman ever approach you to ask you to cut the trees? Vella Reddy:

He approached me to swap property. He wanted that property, right? And I told him no.

Khristine Thalman:

But before the code enforcement came about, that's what I'm trying to get to.

Vella Reddy:

No. And he has approached us to cut the trees, and our response was, "We'll cut the trees to a height that'll preserve our privacy." Which is what you're looking at now. Yes.

Khristine Thalman:

And that was according to your landscape plan?
Vella Reddy:

Yes. According to the landscape plan.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil.

Louis Weil:

Does the current height protect your privacy?
Kavita Reddy:

The current height you can see from, you've been to my house. I have no property in the upper level because of the tree being too low.

Louis Weil:

No privacy.

Kavita Reddy:

No privacy there. And then I'm not sure why they're entitled to a view of Catalina from a lower level. If everybody was entitled to a view from a lower level, there would be no trees in Laguna Beach. Us and the Harrison's, we would come to you and ask you to remove all the trees from below us. So if those lower level, their complaint seems to now be about the lower level, because they have their upper level view

Page 9 of 21 ends

back, then we would lose all our privacy because our decks, our bedroom deck and our barbecue deck are below that. And if I go out there and it's any lower than that, I can see them.

Vella Reddy:

We went over and set the level.

Louis Weil:

Thank you. That answered the question. I have a couple questions for Garrett. It came up through the public commentary that obviously this is a code enforcement. Do you have a rough history for where that's kind of back and forth from what you've analyzed in preparing this project? Garrett Wank:

Yes. So there were two code cases on this property. One opened in 2014, which was related to a fence that has since been closed. This code case was opened in 2023, January of 2023. It wasn't clear within the file itself how many compliance calls there have been, but based on the documentation, it looked like there have been at least 16 inspections for compliance.

Louis Weil:

Keep going.

Garrett Wank:

And the cases remained active while they pursue this modified plan.

Louis Weil:

Is the project deemed currently in compliance?
Garrett Wank:

I'd have to confirm with Ross, the code enforcement officer, but I believe there was an inspection fairly recently, but I'd have to take a look back and see how recent that was.

Louis Weil:

And then it also came up about view preservation. Is there a view preservation on file for the neighboring property? I think it's what, 1848?
Garrett Wank:

There was a view restoration process, a view restoration order, 22-0293 was processed in 2023. So not a view preservation but view restoration.

Louis Weil:

Okay. And then the Board's authority, and maybe this is a Patrick question. Obviously this is a modification for landscape. Do we have the authority to re-prescribe the landscape conditions? Garrett Wank:

You do.

Page 10 of 21 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Correct, yes. So that would include putting restrictions on landscaping that's not being requested be modified by this application.

Louis Weil:

Or yeah, change it.

Is that what you're asking? Patrick, is that what you were answering? Attorney Patrick Donnegan:

Correct. I mean if those are the conditions that the Board needs to make the findings, yes, that is within your purview.

Chair Gannon:

So it creates a nexus for us to override the previous Board's conditions of approval for or height limit is what you're saying?
Attorney Patrick Donnegan:

Once again, if that is what the board requires to make the required findings, yes.

Chair Gannon:

Okay, thank you.

Louis Weil:

So for privacy, so the issue really is view and privacy balancing.

Garrett Wank:

Yeah.

Thomas Gibbs:

I have a question.

Chair Gannon:

Yep, you have a question, Mr. Gibbs.

Thomas Gibbs:

Garrett, I'm a little confused and there's probably an easy answer. Just look at, you don't have to put it up. Just look at staff report, page six. Let me know when you have it. It indicates that the proposed changes are different than what's being discussed. Am I missing something? Garrett Wank:

Yes. So these are items that I identified in a direct comparison between the design review approved landscape plan and the plan being presented now. So those are itemized changes. I'd be happy to pull up the landscape plan to show those clouded as well.

Page 11 of 21 ends

Thomas Gibbs:

Right? No one's talked about these. Why don't you put that page up so the board can see it. My question to you, Steve, is when you look at this, what are these other things and are there, are they impacting privacy or view or non-controversial? Why don't you put it up on the screen, Garrett, if you could. And maybe a better way of doing it is, Steve, explain what this stuff is. Because I don't understand this. And when I went to the site, well it's the list, and the plan's the next page, but it's not really a plan, it's a list.

When I went to the property, it was all about the two Ficus and the other, the canary or the, whatever, that Silver Sheen. So what's all this?
Steve Kawaratani:

I don't know what those are, and I'm slightly nearsighted. So can I come up? Thomas Gibbs:

Well, it's talking about the removal of 17 existing trees, nine Carolina Laurel cherry shrubs, two strawberry trees, and then the planting of six cast iron plants, three agave maintained and there's more.

Steve Kawaratani:

Okay. So I did compile that list. There were a number of plants, Garrett asked me to compare the approved plan to the plan that exists today. And those are the changes. Some of those plants didn't survive after the initial planning and they weren't replaced. So I just itemized what was no longer there.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay, that's the removal. And then the application is seeking the planting of all those other items, including Pittosporum and Silver Sheen. Is that because these items are already planted and you're just seeking approval of it?
Steve Kawaratani:

The Silver Sheen was already planted. The other plant did not survive. So our very astute code enforcement officer noted that the plants were different. That's why we're asking for approval. And again, the topographic survey clearly shows that those two ficus were in existence back in 2012 behind the fence that was illegally installed.

Thomas Gibbs:

I don't mean to cut you off. Okay. It has four eureka lemon trees maintained at 15 feet in height.

Steve Kawaratani:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

And four weeping fig trees maintained at 20 feet in height. And it's talking about planting of those. So what's the story on those?
Steve Kawaratani:

Page 12 of 21 ends

They're in existence right now and so they were just, I did an inventory. Again, Tom, and the blanket approval before was nothing was to exceed 20 feet in height in that location. So I carefully noted that nothing would exceed that height.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So let me kind of get to the bottom line here. This list is of things that already exist that weren't on the original landscaping plan that you're asking us to approve tonight. Is that right? Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah. Again, plants don't always survive. And so what occurs is that if plants are of similar form and size, generally the board will let it go. Garrett wanted an exact inventory what was there and I complied.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Now on the list does not include the two Ficus trees for the planting of, it's not really in the staff report talking about the Ficus, it's in the plans that you submitted. Am I missing something there? Steve Kawaratani:

I'll have to ask Garrett because our request, if you look, say a modification to a previously approved plan.

So with my presentation today, the plants that are in code enforcement are the ones that I addressed.

The other plants were not in code enforcement. So specifically, two Ficus trees that were not planted by us, we're seeking permission to retain them and the Pittosporum Silver Sheen.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Garrett, is there any reason why the Ficus aren't included on this staff report? Garrett Wank:

Yes, the weeping fig is the common name for the Ficus Benjamia.

Thomas Gibbs:

Oh.

Garrett Wank:

What'd he say?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah that's the, which one?
Garrett Wank:

The Ficus Benjamina is theThomas Gibbs:

The weeping fig, the four, trees maintained at 20 feet in height. That's referring to the two Ficus that we've been talking about and the two next to it I assume, right?

Page 13 of 21 ends

Garrett Wank:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

All right, that clears it up. I don't have any further questions.

Khristine Thalman:

If I can follow-up on your question. So the 17 existing trees not specified, that has nothing to do with the Ficus that's currently there?
Garrett Wank:

Right.

Khristine Thalman:

But we don't know which 17 existing tree, I mean is there a way to, if I may, are Thomas Gibbs:

Those already gone Chair?
Steve Kawaratani:

Yeah, if I'm basically the prior Board approved with a blanket height of 20 feet, that was the approval that nothing was to exceed 20 feet. So it really is largely immaterial. What is there now.

Louis Weil:

Got another question.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil has the floor.

Louis Weil:

Garrett, on the plans, I only see on the existing older plan, I only saw two markings for heights. Was there a specific condition that blanketed the whole landscape plan? Because the notations that I saw are just existing in the rear yard, maintained at 20 feet or less. And then the existing hedge up at the front in the right-of-way be maintained at 15 feet. Those are the only two notations. So was there a 20-foot blanket across the whole property?
Garrett Wank:

So there was a condition of approval included that the Brazilian pepper hedge be maintained at 15 feet and specified that all of the remaining 16 trees in the rear yard be at 20 feet or less.

Louis Weil:

Rear yard.

Page 14 of 21 ends

Garrett Wank:

Mm-hmm.

Louis Weil:

Okay. The eucalyptus, those were gone. I didn't see those. Okay, so the rear yard and then the front rightof-way. Okay, thank you for clarification.

Thomas Gibbs:

Let me ask Garrett, have you confirmed that the application that's being sought here is for approval of trees that are existing but are not on the original approved plans? Garrett Wank:

Yes. Yes. For ground cover shrubs and trees that are in existence now, but were not included on the original planting plan.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. So it's a little broader, but I think that answers my primary question so that we can evaluate privacy and view equity. Thanks.

Chair Gannon:

Okay. Does that conclude our questions? The public hearing is now closed. We will go into board comments. Mr. Weil, would you like to have the floor?
Louis Weil:

Yeah. Obviously these code enforcement cases are always difficult, right? There's a lot of issues, a lot of heartache, a lot of conflict between neighbors. And so I view the Board's trying to, whatever's there or what's in front of us is how do we make the process go better going forward for considerations for view and privacy, which are the two matters in front of us today. I think if we get carried away with every planting on this size of lot, it'll be a very lengthy conversation. But for me it's really about these zones that are creating privacy or view corridors. And so Garrett, if you can pull up the landscape plan for me, the plantings on the side yard that are lower on the portion need to be maintained closer to that 20 feet because it does open up that view. But I think when I went there looking at the house from the neighboring house, the privacy component of that 20 feet, it obliterates the privacy of the neighbor and there really is no view to be obtained because you're just looking at the house, and/or pieces of the deck.

And I think there's room that balances this equation of view and privacy. It's not going to maintain the entire view for one perspective at any one cutting, but I think our job is to make this better. So for me, the view line, which was kind of articulated is really how do we kind of maintain an element of privacy between the edge of the corner of the house and the edge of the corner of that deck that's on this plan back at an angle that maintains a line for me where those Ficus are for them to be lower. But for the first one in greens to be kind of the start of lower, but the ones further back can go up to that 25 feet and provide more privacy. Because for me, it only blocked the elements of the house. And I think when I was standing on the deck, I'm looking right into that living room window or I'm looking right at that deck.

There was no view to be achieved by seeing those things. So I'm amenable to letting elements of this program go higher and I'd like to see the board put in our deliberation depending on how everybody else sees this, maybe zones get less, get carried away with what the trees are, but zones of where those men's

Page 15 of 21 ends

and Max's should be. As this goes forward, maybe Garrett can help us draw some squares on the plan to give that element. As far as the silver sheen in the front yard, why that was ever being noted for 18 feet or 20 feet seemed odd to me since the notations were really specific to the front and the rear, that tree could go all the way up to the roof line For my concern, it has no merit for being a code enforcement issue.

Chair Gannon:

Does that conclude your comments?
Louis Weil:

Yeah, but I'd like to hear how the rest of the Board goes and then just try to work on just a collaborative determination of where everyone's kind of seeing it so we make a clean finding going forward. Because I think it's in the interest of all parties that we have it pretty well scripted, but also giving the flexibility for the reality of trees to grow and be cut and maintained and grow and be cut and maintained.

Chair Gannon:

I concur. Mr. Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

I agree with board member Weil, but I think the zones are kind of built in because the backyard gradually goes down. So height, making height limits on those Ficus will do the graduation. In fact, I think they're somewhat, I divided it between and I'm happy to talk. I think that the goal there is the same as I have. I think the lower level view equity is achieved. I think the privacy concerns are significant with respect to Mr. Schiffman's, lower level, the upper level. Again, he's got an expansive view.

I think view equity is probably very closely achieve, but balancing which we do with view equity, I think that the view issue, and it's really hard to tell because the trees. When it was terrible weather when I was there, but I think that a height limitation at the upper level deck of three feet above, and I was thinking this when I was on his deck, three feet, no higher than three feet above the deck. I was thinking at the deck, but I don't think that the view that you need it at the deck to achieve his view of Catalina. I think if it goes up three feet makes it simple, say no higher than three feet above his deck with respect to any trees along that side, which would be the, I think the four Ficus trees. I think that could be a more simple resolution. And when I was up there, that's what I was thinking, but I'm very interested since I'm not a plant guy.

Louis Weil:

Tom, I'm questioning. The deck or the railing height?
Thomas Gibbs:

The railing, yes.

Louis Weil:

Above the railing above the floor or the deck. Oh, that's what you're talking? Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah. So the floor of the deck here, here's the railing.

Page 16 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

Which deck?
Thomas Gibbs:

The upper level deck.

Khristine Thalman:

Of whose, Mr. Schiffman?
Thomas Gibbs:

Of Mr. Schiffman.

Khristine Thalman:

Okay.

Thomas Gibbs:

In other words, I don't know the history of the code enforcement. I saw his pictures. I have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Schiffman's pictures, but I think he's got a view equity interest to not have those trees go higher than say three feet above the floor of the deck. And that's where I would cap the height. And then everything else, again, I wouldn't worry about the first floor. Not a primary area. He's got plenty of expansive view. I wouldn't worry about that. But the upper level deck, give it to three feet. That protects the privacy of the applicant, and I think accommodates the view equity interest of Mr. Schiffman.

MJ Coveny:

I'll kind of riff off of that. Thank you board member. I think that we need to give you guys some serious parameters unfortunately, but that's fine. We'll do that. I don't think there's a view equity issue, but I think there can be some cleanup in order to suffice. Hopefully making everybody get along a little better and kind of put to bed this painful experience. Because I can feel the vibe, and it's not great. So the spa on the lower level, there's a railing to the right of that. The area that's in front of the spa should be maintained to the height of that railing. So in front of the spa itself, there's a low hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's hedge.

If we could just chop off that little piece that's popping over there. This area right here? No, no. Just the area to that railing. So you've got the spa, you've got a railing. So right here, clean. So clean spa view, everything where the railing is, here, this is your lower deck. You have a lower deck railing, I assume it's 36 to 42 inches high. The Ficus can extend above the railing top, four feet.

And then the upper deck railing top, you can extend four feet. So that basically gives you privacy. Because you got a seven-foot person would have to peek over that railing. Does that make sense? Steve, you're looking around like you're freaking out.

Chair Gannon:

It doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain that again. It sounds like you're complicating it.

Page 17 of 21 ends

MJ Coveny:

No, it's not. It's super simple. It's a step-up basically. You have a spa, which right now has a hedge, which I believe is Mr. Schiffman's. on your picture right here. Hold on. Yes, that's just the Ficus. It just pops out.

This little bit just pops out. It's literally just a little chip. Steve, you're not looking at me. You're looking around for help.

Steve Kawaratani:

Are you opening the public hearing?
MJ Coveny:

No, no, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem that difficult to me. Did you guys stand on this deck? It's like there's just a little chunk that needs to go away, and then you have a railing. And that railing can have three feet above it the hedge.

Louis Weil:

I think I understand what you're talking about. So let’s… MJ Coveny:

I think we need to give them parameters. Why aren't we just going to, let's go around the horn and then have discussions.

Louis Weil:

Yeah, let's finish this and then we'll talk about those zones of where the heights.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Coveny has the floor.

Thomas Gibbs:

Maybe the zone idea might work better.

Chair Gannon:

Ms. Coveny, does that conclude your comments?
Chair Gannon:

Again, Ms. Thalman, you have the floor.

Khristine Thalman:

I'm lost.

Louis Weil:

We need you.

Page 18 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I'm lost. Well, tonight I was ready to approve the plan as presented tonight. I think hopefully it would address some of the issues that have gone on for a few years here with code enforcement. And it seems there's some 16 inspections that almost sounds like harassment a little bit. But based on what you've presented today and the list that Garrett has put together in the staff report, the removal and the clarification of that, I can support what you've put forward today, with those clarifications. And to MJ's point, I understand Mr. Schiffman was looking at from his lower level to remove that Ficus area. It's an L.

I gave it to Louis, but nobody seems to understand this.

Louis Weil:

This L?
Khristine Thalman:

Yeah. That's what MJ is requesting. I don't have a problem with that as long as the Reddys don't have a problem with that. But I think this needs to stop. I mean it's one of these issues where we have to, we're an arbitrating board for the most part, and I think we have to have clear definition as far as what needs to be removed, what needs to be planted as stated in the staff report and go on from there. I don't know if that helps or not.

Chair Gannon:

Hold on. I need to make my comments. Yeah, I'm ready to move forward with, because like board member Gibbs said, the downhill slope, a significant amount that it will alleviate if you cap it at 25 feet, those Ficus trees, the hillside, the steep hillside will take care of itself and provide privacy and protect views. So I can approve this project this evening.

Thomas Gibbs:

I want to say something.

Chair Gannon:

Make a comment, yes.

Thomas Gibbs:

Because I think this is going to give us a majority on it. The only thing I thinking of was a tweak, which was with respect to the upper deck. I've looked at the picture here when I was there, it was cloudy. I really couldn't tell. Looking at it, the side view from the upper deck to me is, from looking at this, I think it's adequately protected by the height proposed in the application. And I don't see any other way of working this. And as much as I tried to understand MJ's views, I don't see any value in putting any kind of height restriction impacting the lower level. With respect to the upper level, I think few equity's been achieved.

I could support the project tonight.

Chair Gannon:

Mr. Weil, please make a motion. Wait, are we still commenting?

Page 19 of 21 ends

Louis Weil:

I mean one of the things they were recommending at the beginning was to have maintain heights and stuff, flexibility and maybe some more height than what's there now in elements of that side yard. And I think I was under the impression that certain elements of that side yard don't have an impact. So if the Board will entertain, I'll try to maybe work with staff to draw a couple of these grids over the plan to just get alignment if I can have a couple of minutes.

Thomas Gibbs:

I think he's already done it in that, and I may have a question Chair for Mr. Kawaratani. As I understand it, you're asking that the height limitations proposed in the application are the height limitations that you're agreeing to. Is that right?
Steve Kawaratani:

What we are requesting after I met with a couple of your colleagues, because of all these conditions we've been facing, we're asking that solely the three Ficus, the two plus the one adjacent be allowed to grow to 25 feet. As board member Weil pointed out, those have no impact to the complainants.

Thomas Gibbs:

Yeah, I don't want argument. We've done argument. We got Steve Kawaratani:

It right.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. And you're talking about trimming just those, there's four Ficus, right? Or three? Steve Kawaratani:

There's three.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay. Trimming those three Ficus twice a year.

Steve Kawaratani:

Twice a year. And maintaining less than 25, but no less than 20. Everything else will remain as the prior board approved?
Thomas Gibbs:

No. Or as provided for in the application that I've just talked about.

Steve Kawaratani:

Correct.

Thomas Gibbs:

Okay.

Page 20 of 21 ends

Steve Kawaratani:

We'll accept that.

Thomas Gibbs:

I think that will create the zones by virtue, naturally of the slope in the applicant's backyard. I think we get too complicated, Louis, although I'm happy to hear what you have to propose, but trying to do zones given the much lower heights for the other trees. And we're just talking about the three Ficus to go 20 to 25.

Louis Weil:

So yeah, maintainment of 20 and max of 25.

Thomas Gibbs:

I'm good with that. Max 25. And then all the other trees that are on the property are limited either in the original application, or in this application as set forth in staff report page six.

Louis Weil:

That makes sense. I'm good with that if you want to make that motion.

Chair Gannon:

I'm good with that too.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well before we done MJ, okay, let me make the motion. I may need my glasses on this one. Okay. I move that the Board adopt Resolution 25-2113, approving Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan and finding set action exempt from sequel under 15304 with a couple of changes. The height restrictions provided for in the application as described on page six of the staff report are part of the motion. The change would be that as to the three Ficus, sometimes known as weeping fig trees, will have a minimum height of 20 feet and a maximum height of 25 feet. And those three Ficus will be maintained as a condition of approval twice a year. Can we agree upon months? Would it be like, I don't know when the month, I'd like to get months.

Steve Kawaratani:

Why don't we say the lusty month of spring, which would be April or May, and then six months after that in the fall.

Thomas Gibbs:

Well, let's be more specific. April and then May, June, July...

Steve Kawaratani:

October.

Thomas Gibbs:

October. Is that right? Of each year. So that's my motion.

Page 21 of 21 ends

Khristine Thalman:

I'll second it if it's clear to staff.

Garrett Wank:

That is clear.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Coveney?
MJ Coveney:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Gibbs?
Thomas Gibbs:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Board member Weill?
Louis Weil:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

Chair proton Thalman?
Khristine Thalman:

Yes.

Wendy Jung:

And Chair Gannon?
Chair Gannon:

Yes. Thank you. Motion passes.

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 24-2113, and CEQA Categorical Exemption for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan to an existing single-family dwelling, at 1813 Temple Hills Drive in the R-1 zone. Design review is required for modifications to landscape plans previously approved by the Design Review Board.

Applicant: Steve Kawaratani, Consultant
One party has appealed the decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve the project.

SAID PUBLIC MEETING to be held Tuesday, October 28, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. or as soon thereafter.

For additional information, contact City staff: Shaveta Sharma, Senior Planner (949) 715-0958 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 the 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 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land).

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 non-appealable development. The application was filed on October 7, 202 by Steve Kawaratani and is assigned application number DR-24-2113. The application was approved by the Design Review Board. The decision by the Design Review Board is appealable to the City Council upon the payment of $2,000 and in accordance with Laguna Beach Municipal Code Section 25.05.070.

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/California Coastal Commission/Surrounding Public Agencies/Interested Persons List / Publish Date: 10/18/2025 Created 12/28/20

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.

II. Appellant is Applicant for Denied or Conditionally Approved Project:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The applicant has 5 minutes for opening remarks.

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

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

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.

Attachment 16
Created 12/28/20
III. City Council or City Manager Review of Decision:

1. Staff report summary provided.

2. The City Manager may comment on the reason for review. City Council members will usually comment after hearing comments from the applicant and members of the public.

3. The applicant has 5 minutes to present the project.

4. Any persons in support of or in opposition to the project may speak for 3 minutes each.

5. The applicant has 2 minutes to speak in rebuttal.
1 McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Joint Request for Continuance - Appeal of Design Review Modification 24-2113, Hearing Date: November 18, 2025; Agenda Item: A [JMBM-JMBM.85914.0001] From: Daniel Freedman
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2025 1:05 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Donegan, Patrick AO <[email protected]>; [email protected]; steve kawaratani; schfmn; Sharma, Shaveta CD <[email protected]>; Viera, Anthony CD <[email protected]> Subject: Joint Request for Continuance - Appeal of Design Review Modification 24-2113, Hearing Date: November 18, 2025; Agenda Item: A
Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: With respect to the above referenced appeal, the parties submit the following request:

The parties request a continuance of the November 18th City Council Appeal Hearing to allow additional time for settlement discussions between the parties regarding their respective positions on privacy and view. This request seeks to have the hearing continued to a date certain in January.

Thank you for your consideration.

Daniel F. Freedman | Partner
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90067 O: (310) 203-8080 | D: (310) 785-5391 | E: [email protected] VCARD | BIO | BLOG | LINKEDIN
NATIONAL TIER ONE IN U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT
This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com.

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

November 18, 2025

APPEALS
B
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR’S DESIGNEE’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 25-0891 FOR AN ELEVATED DECK
ADDITION AT 31421 HOLLY DRIVE IN THE R-1, RESIDENTIAL LOWDENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council

1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing on the appeal to December 9, 2025; and

2. Find the Project categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
An appeal of the Community Development Director’s designee’s approval of Design Review 25-0891 located at 31421 Holly Street was filed with the City Clerk on June 18, 2025. To continue the public hearing on the appeal without re-sending public hearing notices, staff requests that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to a date certain. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time. The project was previously continued from the September 23, 2025 City Council meeting, then to the October 28, 2025 City Council meeting, and later to this November 18, 2025 City Council meeting.

The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance. Staff requests the City Council continue this public hearing to the December 9, 2025, City Council meeting.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no financial impact resulting from the continuance.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the recommended actions are exempt from CEQA per Section 15061(b)(3), which is the commonsense exemption that the CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The action on the determination of the appeal at the continued public hearing will include compliance with CEQA.

Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Appeal of the Approval of DR 25-0891 at 31421 Holly Drive November 18, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Daniel Latham, Associate Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

November 18, 2025
APPEAL
C
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24- 0658 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-0657 FOR A NEW SINGLEFAMILY DWELLING, ATTACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE, ELEVATED DECKS,

GRADING, AND LANDSCAPING, AND DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING AT 31526 VALIDO ROAD IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15303 (CLASS 3)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council

1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing on the appeal to January 13, 2026; and

2. Find the Project categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Two appeals of the Design Review Board’s approval of Design Review 24-0658 and Coastal Development Permit 24-0657 at 31526 Valido Road were filed with the City Clerk on October 6, 2025, and October 8, 2025. To continue the public hearing on the appeals without re-sending public hearing notices, staff requests that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to a date certain. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time.

The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance. Staff requests the City Council continue this public hearing to the January 13, 2026, City Council meeting.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no financial impact resulting from the continuance.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Continuance Request
Appeal of the Approval of DR 24-0658 and CDP 24-0657 at 31526 Valido Road November 18, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved: .David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development
Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Heather Steven, Senior Planner Anthony Viera, Deputy Director Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
From: Viera, Anthony CD
To: Steve Kawaratani
Cc: Schneider, Matthew CD; Steven, Heather CD
Subject: RE: 31526 Valido Road
Date: Thursday, November 6, 2025 5:57:00 PM
Hi Steve,
Thanks very much for your email. Staff will prepare an agenda report recommending that the 31526 Valido Road appeals be continued to the January 13, 2026 City Council meeting.

I also wanted to clarify that staff was prepared to present an analysis of the appeals to the City Council on November 18th. However, in response to your request for a continuance, we will now request that the item be continued to the January 13th meeting.

Have a great evening,

A N T H O N Y V I E R A

C I T Y O F L A G U N A B E A C H
Deputy Director of Community Development – Planning Division 505 Forest Avenue
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
p. 949.497.0398 | e. [email protected]
-----Original Message-----
From: steve kawaratani <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, November 6, 2025 4:47 PM
To: Schneider, Matthew CD <[email protected]> Subject: 31526 Valido Road
[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.]
Good afternoon, Matt,
Thanks for considering a continuance for the Council appeal of 31526 Valido Road from November 18, 2025, to January 13, 2026. I am aware of the logjam of Council appeals that have occurred at year’s end. The property owner is aware and agreeable to the continued date.

Sincerely,
Steve Kawaratani

STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date:

November 18, 2025

APPEALS
D
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 24- 1151 AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 24-1152, FOR ADDITIONS AND

REMODEL OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, NEW TWO-CAR

GARAGE, ELEVATED DECK ADDITIONS, GRADING, LANDSCAPING, NEW

POOL AND SPA, AND A NEW ATTACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND VARIANCE 24-1153 FOR ADDITIONS INTO THE FRONT YARD, REAR

YARD, AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING SETBACKS, AND A NEW POOL IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AT 31731 SEACOVE DRIVE IN THE R-1,

RESIDENTIAL LOW-DENSITY ZONE, AND FINDING THE PROJECT

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES SECTION 15301 (CLASS 1)
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council

1. Open the public hearing, take public testimony, and continue the public hearing on the appeal to January 27, 2026; and

2. Find the Project categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

SUMMARY OF THE MATTER
Three appeals of the Design Review Board’s approval of Design Review 24-1151, Coastal Development Permit 24-1152, and Variance 24-1153 located at 31731 Seacove Drive were filed with the City Clerk, two on August 4, 2025, and one on August 6, 2025. To continue the public hearing on the appeal without resending public hearing notices, staff requests that the City Council open the public hearing and continue the matter to a date certain. Staff does not intend to provide a report at this time. The project was previously continued from the September 23, 2025 and October 28, 2025 City Council meetings.

The sole purpose of this item is for City Council to take action on the requested continuance. Staff requests the City Council continue this public hearing to the January 27, 2026, City Council meeting.

FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
There is no financial impact resulting from the continuance.

Appeal of the Approval of DR-24-1151, CDP-24-1152, and VAR 24-1153 at 31731 Seacove Drive November 18, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Continuance Request
Submitted By: Matt Schneider Approved:
.David A Kiff
Matthew Schneider, Director of
Community Development Dave Kiff, City Manager
Report Prepared By: Coordinated With:

Heather Steven, Senior Planner
Anthony Viera, Deputy Director
Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
From: steve kawaratani
To: Viera, Anthony CD; Steven, Heather CD
Cc: McKay, Ann Marie CC; Schneider, Matthew CD; David M. Parker Subject: 31731 Seacove Drive
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:53:38 AM
[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.]
Good morning, Anthony and Heather,
I hope you enjoyed your weekends!
I spoke to our architect, David Parker, over the weekend, and he has a conflict for the proposed Council continuance to January 13, 2026. As the continuance request will be considered on November 18, 2025, may we request January 27th as the Council date? I have also checked with the property owners and that date works for them as well.

Thanks,
Steve

Laguna Beach City CouncilNovember 18, 2025

Laguna Beach City Council
November 18, 2025