LAGUNA RECEIVED
BEACH APR 0 3 2025
CALIFORNIA City of Laguna Beach, CA City Clerk's Office
CITY OF LAGUNA BEACH
NOTICE OF APPEAL
NOTICE:
1. applicant or any other aggrieved property owner within three hundred feet of the subject property.
2. A CEQA determination in connection with the decisions described above are subject to Public Resources Code section 21151(c) and may be appealed by any person. 3 The appeal fee of $2,000.00 must accompany the appeal at submittal.
4. This form must be received by the City Clerk within 14 calendar days of the appealed decision or determination.
5. All information requested below must be provided. Attach additional pages if necessary.
6. Prior to completing this form you may wish to read Laguna Beach Municipal Code section
25.05.070, which pertains to appeals. Copies of the Code are available at Community Development Department counter the City Clerk's Office and on the City's website.
APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Email: [email protected]
Name of Appellant: Rhett and Sherry Schiffman Phone No: 313-516-6924 Address of Appellant: 1843 Temple Hills Drive
1813 Temple Hills Drive
Address of Subject Property:
Owner of Subject Property: Mathew and Kavita Reddy
Board/Commission/Officer responsible for Decision Appealed: (Select One) * Design Review/Board of Adjustment
e Planning Commission
Other: (Explain)_
March 25, 2025 (Date of Decision)
Date of Decision/Hearing:
-
Appeal of: (Select One)
Approval
CEQA Determination (Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21151(c)) Other: (Explain).
505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771
Generally Describe:
The type of permit, relief or action originally sought for the subject property:
Application to the Design Review Board for modifications to a previously (2012) approved landscape plan for property located at 1813 Temple Hills Drive.
REASON FOR THE APPEAL:
Applicants are the owners of the property located at 1813 Temple Hills Dr. Appellants Rhett and Sherry Schiffman are the owners of the property at 1843 Temple Hills Drive, which is next door to the property that is the subject of this appeal. They bought their property in 2010. After the hearing of the DRB, the DRB adopted a Resolution on March 25th that modified a landscaping plan for 1813 Temple Hills Dr. that had been approved by the DRB in 2012. Appellants attended and testified at the February 13, 2025 hearing and expressed their opposition to the project on the grounds that the modified landscaping plan severely interfered with their view of the ocean and Catalina and that would create a fire and safety hazard. They provided the DRB with substantial evidence of these conditions. It is Appellants' position that in granting Applicants' application, the DRB failed to proceed in the manner "required by law" and that the DRB's decision was not supported by "substantial evidence" as required by LBMC 25.05.070(E)(2)(a). [Continued on following page.] The foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date 4-1-25
(Signature of Appellant)
PROCEDURE FOR REQUESTING A CONTINUANCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING :
Continuances may be granted at the discretion of the City Council. Either the applicant (owner of the subject property or his/her designee) or the appellant may request a continuance at or, preferably, before the time of the public hearing. If, no later than the Wednesday prior to the public hearing, the applicant submits a written request accompanied by $50 to cover the cost of renoticing, the City staff has the authority to continue the hearing, if in the judgement of the staff, there is no valid or legal reason not to continue the hearing. Such requests are to be submitted to the City Clerk.
Appeal Received By:
Date Filed:
Appeal Fee:
Date of Hearing:
505 Forest Ave. Laguna Beach, CA 92651 TEL (949) 497-3311 FAX (949) 497-0771 The DRB's conduct of the hearing on February 13, 2025, and the DRB's deliberations that date, and actions since then, were highly irregular in many ways. By way of example:
1. This was a CE-Mandated DRB meeting after the Applicants received a notice of violation for among other things, creating a public nuisance, and 3 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 plan where only ground cover was meant to be.
2. The scheduled DRB hearing on Applicants' project was conducted on February 13, 2025; however, the DRB failed to issue its Decision or to give 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 25'h.
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 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.
The photo shows unequivocally the Vella crew planting the two illegal Ficuses in Nov. 2103
IMG 2010
November 19 2013
12 19 PM
Add a description
Laguna Beach
(133)
Aliso and
2 km
© 2025 tomom, 02025 Messon TermLag
Nic
Size Info
3264 x 2448 3.7 MB 72 dpi 24 bit
Device Info
Apple iPhone 5 4.12mm f/24 1/125 sec
ISO 80 No flash, compulsory
Mr. Kawaratani also testified that the Appellants harassed 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.
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 trees on the property not captured on the plan.
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.
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 issued 3 citations. Below are portions of the Code Enforcement's April 9, 2025 communications with Applicants.
"April 19, 2023
RE: Property at 1813 Temple Hills Dr., Laguna Beach, CA-APN: 641-382-14 Non-Compliance to the approved Landscape Plan
Dear Property Owners:
This letter is sent regarding alleged violation(s) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code (the "Municipal Code") at the subject property. City records indicate that you are the property owner or agent or trustee of record. Our office received a complaint regarding dead plant debris, illegal trees/vegetation, and overgrown trees/vegetation which are non-compliant of the approved landscape plan of Design Review at the subject property. A recent inspection was conducted in which the validity of the complaint was confirmed at your property. The following violation(s) of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code are noted at the above subject address: LBMC L18-010
Compliance with permit, license, approval or entitlement conditions required. a. No person, business, or enterprise shall fail to comply with each and every condition and restriction specified or incorporated in any license, permit approval or other entitlement that is issued pursuant to the provision of this code(s) (b) This section shall apply to any person, business or enterprise, whether or not the person, business or enterprise was the original applicant for the license permit, approval or other entitlement, and whether or not the person, business, or enterprise is the oversee agent or employee if the person, business or enterprise has notice of the terms and conditions of the license, permit approval or other entitlement. (Or.1608 1, 2015)
LBMC 7.24.030 Maintenance of property. It is declared a public nuisance for any person owning, leasing, occupying or having charge or control of possession of any premised within the city of Laguna Beach to maintain or allow to be maintained such premises in such a manner that any of the following conditions are found to exist thereon (C) Premises maintained so as to constitute a fire hazard by reason of woods, rampant overgrowth or accumulation of debris (g) Maintenance of premises in such condition as to be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare or in such manner as to constitute a public nuisance as defined by Civil Code Section 94
LBMC 25.05.040 Design review (F) Deliberation and Action of Applications (7) Landscaping Conditions. The approval authority shall condition all landscaping approvals with mature growth height limits and maintenance schedules (type and frequency of pruning) for all vegetation that potentially interrupts view. The landscaping changes may be exempt from design review pursuant to Section 25.05.040(b)(2)(1).
REMARKS & REQUIRED ACTION(S)
i. I observed dead plant debris that appeared to be a nest for rodents or birds located within the tree. Remove the plant debris nest from the tree. Photos enclosed. ii. I observed there were several trees that were overgrown above the height limit as noted on the approved landscape plan. Trim the existing trees located in the rear yard to the approved twenty (20) feet or less and the trees located in the front yard to twelve (12) and fifteen (15) feet. Photos enclosed.
iii. The approved landscape plan has been altered to include unapproved plantings of two (2) additional Ficus trees, four (4) or five (5) Melaleuca trees or similar, two (2) Acacia trees at side/rear yard of your property without Design Review approval. Photos enclosed
iv. Any changes to the approved landscape plan may or will require Design Review Approval.
v. Submit plans and the required applications to the Community Development Department to obtain Planning Divisions approval for an amendment to your approved landscape plan or remove the trees noted above in #3 and if any other trees from your property so it is consistent with the approved landscape plans. We ask for your cooperation in correcting these violations by Tuesday, May 16, 2025. Please be advised that failure to
correct the aforementioned violations will result in the City proceeding with further action. The City of Laguna Beach Municipal Code reserves any and all remedies it may have available, including, but not limited to, the recording of a pending action against the property, nuisance abatement, civil action, criminal prosecution or issuance of administrative citations. Failure to correct the violations by the compliance date may result in the issuance of an administrative citation, which could carry a daily fine amount of $100-$500 per day violation."
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 the 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.
7. A review of the transcript of the DRB February 13 hearing reveals that Applicants failed to provide the DRB 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.
8. Further, a review of the video of the February 13 hearing reveals that the various members were confused about the locations, dimensions, impacts 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 they were overruled.
What the DRB did approve allows for the illegal Ficuses to grow to 25ft 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.
Great Room Master Bedroom
• This pole (red
arrow) is at
23 proximately
• The yellow line
is where the
Illegal Ficuses
are now
• Allowing these
to grow to 25 ft
would be
catastrophic to
our views and
our property
value and a fire
hazard
There is a simple solution to this that restores more privacy to the Vellas than in the current resolution without compromising the Schiffmans' views
We respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and set aside the Resolution of the DRB issued on March 25, 2025.
4-1-22
Dated:
Rhett Schiffman, Appellant
Q-145
Dated:
Sherry Schiffman, Appellant
Exhibit
"9"
Thomas Davis
From: Shackelford, Julie CD < [email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 12:36 PM
To: Vanessa Aguirre
Subject: RE: 1813 Temple Hills Drive
You are welcome!
Have a good day!
Julie Shackelford
Records Management Coordinator
Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
(949) 497-0709
From: Vanessa Aguirre <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2025 9:34 AM
To: Shackelford, Julie CD <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 1813 Temple Hills Drive
[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.] Thank you so much, Julie!
Vanessa
On Mar 25, 2025, at 9:08 AM, Shackelford, Julie CD <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi Vanessa,
Here is the signed resolution for 1813 Temple Hills Drive. I do not have the minutes yet.
Julie Shackelford
Records Management Coordinator
Community Development
City of Laguna Beach
(949) 497-0709
<ftdmtrbecz0.pdf>
1 :
RESOLUTION 24-2113
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF THE CITY OF
LAGUNA BEACH, CALIFORNIA APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 24-2113 LOCATED AT 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE AND APPROVING
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
WHEREAS, on September 14, 2023, an application was filed by the owner of property located at 1813 Temple Hills Drive ("Applicant"), requesting Design Review 24-2113 for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan (the "Project"): and WHEREAS, the Design Review Board conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on February 13. 2025, pursuant to Title 25, Zoning, of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. The Design Review Board has considered all public testimony on the proposed Project and all relevant public comments, and all documents and evidence submitted, including but not limited to the staff report, attachments, and materials submitted by the Applicant; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
SECTION 1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct and are incorporated into this Resolution by this reference.
ECTION 2. The Design Review Board hereby tinds that the Project is exempt from CEQ. ursuant to Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, in that the project consists of minor alterations i 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.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
SECTION 3. The Design Review Board hereby makes the following findings with respect to Design Review 24-2113:
Finding No. 1: Physical improvements and site developments related to the Project are designed and located in a manner in overall consistency with the design review criteria specified in Section 25.05.040(H), as set forth below:
1. Access: Conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians and other modes of transportation should be minimized by specifically providing for each applicable mode of transportation. Handicapped access shall be provided as required by applicable statutes.
N/A. The 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
2. Design Articulation: Within the allow'able building envelope, the appearance of huilding and retuining wall mass should be minimized. Articulation techniques including, but not limited to. separation, offsets, terracing and reducing the sice of any one element in the structure may he 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 hy 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 utilised in the design and grading should be minimised.
Yes. The subject property is located within a developed single-family neighborhood and does not maintain any significant natural features, such as héritage 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.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
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.
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 on- site 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.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
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.+5 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 modified over the years, including kitchen additions in 1964, a garage extension in 1993, and upper- level floor area additions and deck additions in 2012.
7. Landscaping: Landscaping shall be incorporated as an integrated purt 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.
The proposed changes to the approved planting plan (already planted) incorporate a range of groundcover, shrubs. and trees including:
• Removal of:
• 9 Carolina Laurel Cherry shrubs
• 2 Strawberry Trees
• 17 existing trees (species not specified)
• Planting of:
• 6 Cast Iron Plants (groundcover),
• 3 Agave maintained at 4' in height,
• 2 Phormium Hybrid Flux maintained at 4' in height.
• 4 Eureka Lemon trees maintained at 15" in height
• 4 Weeping Fig trees maintained at 20' in height
• 1 Evergreen Ash tree maintained at 20' in height
• 2 Pittosporum Silversheen shrubs maintained at 18' in height As noted on the landscape plan, all volunteer plants are to be removed.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
8. Lighting and Glare: Adequate lighting for individual and public safety shall be provided in a manner which does not significantly impact neighhoring properties. Reflective materials and appurtenances that cause glare or a negative visual impact (e.g.. skylights, white rock roofs, high- gloss ceramic tile roofs, reflective glass, etc.) should be avoided or mitigated to a level of insignificance in those locations where those surfaces are visible from neighboring properties.
N/A. The Applicant does not propose any new lighting as part of this application. Any future lighting will be subject to the Good Neighbor Lighting Ordinance.
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.
10. Pedestrian Orientation: Commercial development design shall enhance and encourage pedestrian uses: Incorporation of articulated building musses, compact open spaces and courtyards. mixed use developments, use of landscaping as part of design, and orientation to pedestrian uccess should be maximiced.
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 (eg.. decks, picture window's and ceremonial or entertainment rooms) in locations that would result in a substantial invasion of privacy of neighboring properties should be minimiced.
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 Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
physical environment in terms of color, scale und 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 huilding 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 locuted, designed and constructed where: (a) geology conditions allow: (b) noise produced by circulatory mechanical pumps and equipment is mitigated; and (c) any associuted fencing or other site improvements are compatible with neighboring properties.
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 view's 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° 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 "alifornia 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 maintainec 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.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
Yes. The project is consistent with the Residential Design Review Guidelines, as explained above.
There are no other design guidelines that apply.
prior Nol The dysical imer, diverse and it deve armietral deso the pedest an oractin, do ppropriately scaled development,
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:
SECTION 4. The Design Review Board hereby approves Design Review 24-2113, subject to conditions of approval in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Resolution has been based are located at City Hall. 505 Forest Avenue Laguna Beach. CA 92651. The custodian of the record of proceedings is the Director of Community Development.
SECTION 6. If any provision of this Resolution is held invalid, the remainder of this Resolution shall not be affected by such invalidity, and the provisions of the Resolution are severable.
Adopted on February 13, 2025, by the following vote:
AYES: COVENY, GIBBS, WEIL, THALMAN, GANNON
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
Jessic Cannon, Chair
Jim Campbell, Interim Planning Manager
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
EXHIBIT 'A'
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Standard Conditions:
1. Design Review 24-2113 is granted for modifications to a previously approved landscape plan.
Approval is granted based on the development plans and landscape plans submitted by Steve Kawaratani on September 16, 2024 and received by City on September 27, 2024. Said plans are approved as submitted and conditioned herein and shall not be altered unless reviewed and approved
2. That the conditions of approval contained herein, shall be made part of the construction drawings for the proposed development. Construction drawings shall not be accepted for Plan Check without the conditions of approval incorporated into the construction drawings.
3. In the event that exhibits and written conditions are inconsistent, the written conditions shall prevail.
If there are any disparities between these conditions and the plans or final revised plans that are approved for any subsequent phase, the conditions and/or plans as stipulated in the later approval shall prevail.
4. All plans, specifications, studies, reports, calculations, maps, notes, legal documents, and designs shall be prepared, signed, and stamped (when required) only by those individuals legally authorized to do so.
5. Approval of this application does not relieve the applicant from complying with other applicable Federal, State, County or City regulations or requirements.
6. The Applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Laguna Beach and its officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Laguna Beach, its officers, employees, or agents to attack, set aside. void, or annul any approval or condition of approval of the City of Laguna Beach concerning this Project, including but not limited to any approval or condition of approval of the City Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, Community Development Director. or City Planner. The City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any claim, action, or proceeding concerning the Project and the City shall cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officers, employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
7. The Applicant shall be responsible for informing all subcontractors, consultants. engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the project of their responsibilities to comply with these conditions of approval and all pertinent requirements in the Laguna Beach Municipal Code, including the requirement that a business license be obtained by all entities doing business in the City.
8. The Applicant shall pay all fees at the time fees are determined payable and comply with all requirements of the applicable federal, state, and local agencies. The duty of inquiry as to such requirements shall be upon the applicant.
Design Review Board Resolution 24-2113
9. Failure to comply with any of these conditions of approval is grounds for revocation of the entitlements) and is subject to any other available remedies to the City.
10. The Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until City staff has verified compliance with all conditions of approval.
11. The effective date of the entitlements granted herein do not commence until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission, have been exhausted, statutes of limitation have expired, and any lawsuits, filed within the statutes of limitation, have concluded.
12. In the event any of the conditions of approval are infeasible, the decision-making body hereby authorizes the Community Development Director to modify those conditions in the most conservative manner possible, in accordance with the limitations of the City's Municipal Code, to allow for the completion of the project.
Standard Conditions of Approval for Design Review - Community Development Department
13. The approval granted by this Resolution shall lapse and automatically become void two years following the effective date if the privileges authorized by design review are not executed or utilized or, if construction work is involved, such work is not commenced within such two-year period and diligently pursued to completion. unless an extension of time is granted pursuant to the provisions of the Laguna Beach Municipal Code. Extensions of time shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to the expiration of the entitlements.
Project Specific Conditions for Design Review - Community Development Department
14. Landscaping Conditions. The landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscape plans. Thereafter, the landscaping shall be continuously maintained (including replanting. as necessary) in compliance with the approved landscaping plans, unless such plans are subsequently revised pursuant to a subsequent Design Review approval. Minor landscaping changes which does not have the potential to impact views at mature growth height may be exempt from Design Review.
15. The Ficus Benjamina (Weeping Fig) trees shall be maintained at a minimum height of 20' and a maximum height of 25' and are to be trimmed twice yearly in April and October.
Exhibit
"2"
MINUTES
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT/DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
REGULAR MEETING AND NOTICED HEARING
MARCH 15, 2012
A regular noticed meeting of the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board of the City of Laguna Beach, California, convened at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers on March 15, 2012.
Present: Ilse Lenschow, Caren Liuzzi, Ken Sadler, Michael Wilkes, Robin Zur Schmiede
Absent: None
Staff Present: Liane Schuller, Margaret Brown
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. 618 LORETTA DRIVE, APN 656-053-22 APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW 07-302 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
The applicant requests Design Review Board approval for a one-year extension of time. In 2008, design review approval was given for additions to a single-family dwelling. This is the final request.
Ms. Lenschow made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve extension of time for DesignReview 07-302 at 618 Loretta Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion IL Second CL Grant Y Deny_ Cont _ Unan. Y
Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y
2. 482 ASTER STREET, APN 496-163-03 APPROVED
REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 12-196 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION The applicant requests a revocable encroachment permit to permit improvements within the right-of-way including paving, walls, irrigation and lighting.
Ms. Lenschow made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve Revocable Encroachment Permit 12-196 at 482 Aster Street. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion Second Grant Deny. Cont _ Unan.
Lenschow _ Liuzzi Sadler Wilkes Zur Schmiede _
876 VAN DYKE DRIVE, APN 644-232-21 APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW 12-253 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
The applicant requests design review to modify a previously approved project in the R-l Zone. The requested modification is an elevated deck addition (14 square-foot top level deck and 665 square-foot new Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -2- March 15, 2012 footage for the house has been reduced by 228 square feet and the garage area has been reduced by 190 square feet. Additional modifications include window and door changes, roof alterations, exterior lighting. landscaping and additional stone veneer.
Ms. Lenschow made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve Design Review 12-197 at 2695 Riviera Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion IL Second CL Grant Y Deny. Cont_ _ Unan. Y
Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y
6. 1813 TEMPLE HILLS DRIVE, APN 641-382-14 (Staff Assist) APPROVED WITH
CONDITIONS
DESIGN REVIEW 12-248 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
The applicant requests design review to construct a 919 square-foot living area addition and a 44 square- foot mechanical room addition to a single-family residence in the R-1 Zone. Design review is required for upper level additions, elevator height, elevated decks (872 square feet), air conditioning units, grading, landscaping, construction in an environmentally sensitive area (earthquake fault) and to maintain the nonconforming driveway grade.
Project Representative: Architect Bob McGraw proposes adding 916 square feet on a third lower level under an existing 2,500 square foot, two-level home on a fairly steep lot. They also propose 478 square feet of deck accessed from the new level. The exterior will receive a new look. The proposed lower level is 65% under existing home and the roof will become a 392 square-foot deck accessible from the existing middle level. Projecting the new lower level out beyond the existing rear wall allows them to stay within the maximum allowable height; pushing the existing roof back would exceed the maximum allowable height. This also allows stepping the house. This placement keeps excavation to a minimum of only eight cubic yards. Total lot coverage with this addition will be 18.7%. They propose replacing the driveway with permeable pavers. The existing vehicular turnaround doesn't work so the driveway is being expanded and the access area dug a little further into the hill. There are no negative effects on neighbors' views or privacy.
Public Testimony: None
Board Questions: Ms. Zur Schmiede asked the dimensions of the new, cantilevered mid-level deck. Mr. McGraw said it cantilevers about two feet in order to add an eave to the lower level The deck is eight feet from rail to existing wall. Ms. Zur Schmiede had a concern with overgrown landscaping and there is no landscape plan. If the trees and overgrowth were reduced over time it might open up views for the neighbor. Mr. McGraw said the remaining trees are mostly Eucalyptus. The applicants offered to remove them at the neighborhood meeting but no one had a concern. Ms. Zur Schmiede' s other concern is with the existing hedge of Brazilian Peppers - which grow fairly tall - and are shown to remain in front. Mr. McGraw said they are open to suggestions. Ms. Zur Schmiede would like to see a height limit added to the existing hedge in front. She would like the trees in the back yard removed and other trees planted to be kept at a certain height. Landscape Architect Michael Bonner said the trees in the rear yard are some Eucalyptus and some Acacias. The hedge in front is probably 15 to 20 feet tall at present. They are open to removing trees of a certain height with the hedge limited to the Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -5- March 15, 2012 existing height out front. Mr. Wilkes commented that entire hedge is in the street right-of-way.
Ms. Liuzzi agreed a height limitation was needed. Ms. Zur Schmiede suggested a limit of 10 feet and keeping it trimmed for pedestrians. Mr. Bonner agreed. He said no new trees are proposed in the rear yard and they agreed to keep all vegetation at 15 feet in the back. Mr. Wilkes verified the applicant is willing to maintain the 18 existing trees at 15 feet high or remove them completely.
Ms. Liuzzi felt the lights cascading down the hill are not needed and verified the applicant is willing to reduce them from 50 to 25. Mr. McGraw said there are sconces on each side of the garage door and sconces on the lower level. Mr. McGraw agreed to limit the exterior lighting to one per exit - maximum 40 watts - with a low voltage sconce on each side of the garage.
Ms. Lenschow verified the applicants are not required to do a full geological report but will look at the excavation with the Building Division. She also verified there are steps at the side of the driveway.
Board Comments: Ms. Liuzzi said this adds more articulation to the rear and most of the addition is under the house. She finds it neighborhood compatible and can support the project with restrictions of 15 feet in rear vegetation, 10 feet on the front hedge, 1 light per exit with the exception of the garage which has two and a reduction of 50% in landscaping lighting.
Mr. Sadler said a number of houses in the neighborhood have such steep driveways that they can't even be seen. This project is situated in such an area and on the site in such a way that it's not imposing on neighbors and there is no opposition. There is a vacant lot next door that may be developed so the landscaping is worth considering. There is a nonconforming driveway and no way to easily fix it and remove the excess slope. The driveway is in bad shape and needs repair. Improving the turnaround will be helpful. The expansion is mostly within the existing building envelope and that part expanding out past that creates no issues. He is not as strong on the landscape lighting which is all mostly path lighting of 10 or 20 watts; perhaps the seven up lights could be reduced to two.
Ms. Zur Schmiede agrees with Ms. Liuzzi that the house is lovely. The materials and addition in back complies with hillside guidelines and improves the back of the house. She would like the landscaping conditions of 10 feet height restriction on the Brazilian Pepper in front, trimmed back along the roadway to allow walking and for safety reasons and all trees in back kept at 15 feet in height or removed at applicant's choice. As for lighting, 27 step lights are okay but all others should be reduced by half to twelve.
Ms. Lenschow said the area hasn't changed, there has always been vegetation. This home is so far down the hill it can almost be missed. They can't do anything about the steep driveway but she's glad they have steps. She agrees with a reduction of up lights, reduction of wattage on the garage lights and the step lights are fine. She doesn't think it's necessary to restrict vegetation height in back - it's a canyon and makes nice wooded setting for those behind. If these are cut to 15 feet you will see the house and not the trees. She can approve keeping the front hedge trimmed to the existing height as she thinks it's needed for privacy and noise.
Mr. Wilkes thinks the hedge has the potential to get higher and wider - 10 to15 feet probably won't make a big difference but it might make a difference in the amount of privacy and noise.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -6- March 15, 2012 He proposed maintaining at 15 feet in height and not any wider into the right-of-way. He didn't see an impact from a lot of the large trees in the side and back yards. But there are eighteen so maybe some are impacting or could impact uphill neighbors in the future. It's a large vertical structure and introducing a third floor is more to look at if there aren't as many trees. Ms.
Lenschow feels trimming the trees in back to fifteen feet helps no one and makes it worse. Mr.
Wilkes favors removing both of the highest Eucalyptus trees in the side yard and maintaining the other 16 trees in the rear yard at 20 feet maximum. He is okay with 15 feet height on the Brazilian Pepper hedge in front and no wider than existing, no further encroachment into the right-of-way. He is more concerned with the seven up lights which he would like to limit to 3 or 4 on key trees. He has no big issue with the remaining lights. Mr. Bonner said the side yard and path lights in the rear are on a switch, lights in front are automatic.
Mr. Wilkes made a motion, seconded by Mr. Sadler, to approve Design Review 12-248 at 1813 Temple Hills Drive with the conditions that the existing Brazilian Pepper hedge in the right-of- way be maintained at 15 feet high and the width not allowed to be any wider into the right-of- av; two Eucalvptus in the side vard directly above the small deck be removed; the remainin istine 16 trees in the rear vard be maintained at 20 feet or less: the up lights be reduced fro seven to four, and that the architectural lighting be limited to one light per exit, two at the garage of forty watts maximum. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion MW Second KS Grant Y Deny Cont _ Unan. Y
Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y
7. 2767 VICTORIA DRIVE, APN 656-151-55 APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW 11-0119 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
The applicant requests design review to expand an existing clevated deck (25 square feet) on a single- family residence in the R-1 Zone. Design review is required for exterior modifications to an "E" rated structure listed on the City's Historic Register (Code Enforcement).
Ms. Lenschow made a motion, seconded by Ms. Liuzzi, to approve Design Review 11-0119 at 2767 Victoria Drive. Motion carried unanimously.
Motion IL Second CL Grant Y Deny_ Cont_ Unan. Y
Lenschow Y Liuzzi Y Sadler Y Wilkes Y Zur Schmiede Y
8. 465 OSGOOD COURT, APN 644-286-32 APPROVED
DESIGN REVIEW 11-207 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, LAST HEARD 2/9/2012 (THIRD HEARING) The applicant requests design review for modifications to a prior approval in the R-1 Zone. Design review is required for an elevated deck (172 square feet) and additions within the building footprint (20 square- feet/garage, 39 square-feet/storage).
Project Representative: Architect Todd Skenderian said the deck was reduced in size from 102 to 58 square feet, the depth reduced from 7 feet 9 inches to 3 feet 11 inches, it was shifted away from the uphill neighbor to a total distance of 14 and one-half feet with a single 30-inch wide door accessing the deck, the width of the dormer was reduced to 5 feet 10 inches, and the post and beam support system was eliminated in favor of a cantilevered assembly for the deck.
Board of Adjustment/Design Review Board Agenda -7- March 15, 2012