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:
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.” City Council Finds:
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 -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.
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 -4- Reso. #
the topographic conditions of the Property, and balanced consideration for the Applicant’s privacy and the Appellant’s views.
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.” City Council Finds:
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.
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.”
City Council Finds:
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.” 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.
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.” City Council Finds:
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.
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.”
City Council Finds:
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